Allahabad Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. Anil Chandra Vs. Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2002
Pradeep Kant, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. P. Srivastava, Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel. Sri Rajeev Sharma has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 also, namely ; the Director of the Institute, who has also been arrayed by name as opposite party No. 6 to the writ petition. The director Professor Anshu Kumar Sinha (opposite party No. 6) despite being served personally on 10.5.2002 has not chosen to file his power independently.2. The petitioner, who claims himself the senior-most Scientist in Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, has initially filed this petition for quashing the notification/ order dated 28.1.2002 by virtue of which opposite party No. 6, namely ; Professor Anshu Kumar Sinha was allowed to hold the charge of the post of Director of the Institute until further orders pending formal approval of the Government of India. Later on a challenge has also ...
Smt. Dayawati and ors. Vs. Madan Lal Varma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All276
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998 in Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1986 allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of appellants, 2. The present appellants filed the suit No. 109 of 1985 for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by Nava Ratan Lal regarding the disputed house No. 473-A, Shahganj, Allahabad in favour of Ghasi Ram Chaurasiya, respondent No. 3 and subsequent sale deeds executed by Ghasi Ram in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 are void and not binding upon the appellants. 3. In brief, the appellants pleaded in the plaint that the house in dispute was acquired by Sri Parmeshwar Dayal grand father of Nava Ratan Lal and it was ancestral property in the hands of Nava Ratan Lal, who was defendant No. 1 to suit, but died during the pendency of the suit in the year 1997 and therefore was not impleaded as party in this, appeal. The appellants are widow, sons and daughters of Nava Ratan Lal. It was further ...
Qazi Noorul Hasan Hamid HussaIn Petrol Pump and anr. Vs. Deputy Direct ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR1090]; 2009AIRSCW5490
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner, running a petrol pump (public retail outlet) for dispensing petrol/diesel has challenged an order dated October 17, 2002 issued by Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Kanpur directing petitioner to make contribution under the Act from August, 1993 to May, 2000 and interest on the aforesaid amount failing which recovery shall be issued under Sections 45C and 45G of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. It was admitted by the counsel for petitioners that an Employees' State Insurance Court has been established under Section 75 of the Act at Etawah to decide any question or dispute, for the matters provided under Section 75, but since the issue relates to applicability of the Act, it was prayed that the matter be considered by this Court in the light of the decisions rendered by different High Courts.3. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan for petitioner and Sri A.K. Srivasta...
Dwarka and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4067
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal was preferred by Dwarka, Indrajeet, Parbhoo, Shyam Sunder, Gauri Shanker and Asha Ram against the judgment and order dated 26-2-1981 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 88 of 1980 convicting Dwarka Indrajeet, Parbhoo and Shyam Sunder under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, I.P.C. and 201, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonmentfor life under Section 302/149, two years R.I. under Section 148 and two years R.I. under Section 201, I.P.C. The appellant Gauri Shanker and Asha Ram were acquitted by the trial Court, but they were wrongly arrayed as appellants in the memo of appeal.2. During pendency of the appeal, appellants Dwarka and Parbhoo died and the appeal preferred by them stood abated, vide order of this Court dated 2-12-2002.3. The appeal now remains preferred by Indrajeet and Shyam Sunder,4. The prosecution, story, briefly stated, was as under :--Appellants Indrajeet, Shyam Sunder, Dwarka and Parbhoo as wel...
Veerpal @ Virendra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2731
V.N. Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 1-2-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura in the exercise of his powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent the petitioner/detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The contention of the petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner has been detained under the Act on the basis of solitary incident in case crime No. 1 of 2002 under Sections 302/201 IPC and later on converted under Sections 396, 328, 412 and 201 IPC and Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act.3. Brief facts of case is that, Sri Sukhbir Singh lodged the F.I.R. under Sections 302/ 201 IPC at 11.00 A.M. at Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras, which was registered as case crime No. 1 of 2002. It was alleged by Sukhbir Singh that, on 3-1-2002 at about 10.00 A.M. near S...
Dharamvir Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3452
K.N. Ojha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against order of conviction and sentence dated 18-11-1995 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 157 of 1994. Dharamvir Singh has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and under Section 201, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Sessions Judge has directed that both the sentences passed under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. will run concurrently.2. Murder of his own wife Smt. Anandi Kumari was allegedly committed by the appellant on 12-7-93 or before it. F.I.R. was lodged by her brother, Amar Singh at Police Station Kotwali, District Etah bearing crime No. 48 on 17-7-1993 at 9.30 p.m. under Section 364, I.P.C. against the appellant Dharamvir Singh and his father Naubat Singh. Later on the offence was c...
Es. Kay Remedies Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC389(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated January 19, 1989 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition and for a mandamus modifying the eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 dated April 22, 1998 and for a direction that the exemption be granted under section 4-A to the petitioner for five years. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction restraining the respondent No.3 the Sales Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar, for demanding any trade tax or passing any order against the petitioner for not depositing the tax after October 15, 1988.2. We have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of medicines. The partners of the firm were Sri Arvind Arora, Sri Alok...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Girja Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC791; [2003(96)FLR1094]
V.N. Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.11.1982, passed by the then VIth Additional District, Judge, Allahabad, by which the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1979, passed in Original Suit No. 397 of 1977 (Court, of Munsif, West, Allahabad) was set aside and the suit for perpetual injunction was decreed and it was held that, the notice of termination dated 30.8.1977 is invalid and illegal.2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent Girja Shankar Pandey was appointed as casual labour on 31.8.1970 in the Allahabad Division of the Northern Railway.3. The contention of the respondent is that, subsequently he was appointed as Class IV regular employee with effect from 1.3.1971 and was promoted to the post of Driver on 24.10.1973. After expiry of the period of probation, he became permanent employee from 24.10.1974 or at the most from 24.11.1975.4. A notice dated 30.8.1977, was given for terminating the services ofthe responden...
Shambhoo Nath Gupta Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1161; (2003)1UPLBEC690
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.2. Petitioner has claimed that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Sahkari Sangrah Kosh Niyamavall, 1982 are applicable to the employees of Collection Branch of Co-operative Department regarding retirement. The employees of State Government have been granted benefit of amendment in Fundamental Rule 56 (3).3. The said Rules provide that such provisions which are not incorporated in the said 1982 Rules, the rules applicable to the State Government employees, shall be applicable. It is argued that the age of retirement has not been provided in the said 1982 Rules. Therefore, theage of retirement as is applicable under Fundamental Rules, is 60 years which provides that a Government servant will retire at the age of 60 years, will be applicable to the employee governed by 1982 Rules. The counter-affidavit says that the status of the employee...
Sarojani Pandey (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1129
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. This Court by the order dated 7th December, 2002 granted one month's and no more further time to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed till date.3. Learned Standing Counsel firstly prayed for further time to file counter-affidavit but in view of the aforesaid, the same cannot be granted.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order relies upon the Government Order dated 28th October, 1998, whereby it has been ruled that the examinations of Prathama and Madhyama conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the authorities have not taken into consideration the documents Annexures '4'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »