Allahabad Court October 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.
Vishwambhar Nath Vs. Allahabad Bank and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3426; (2004)2UPLBEC1122
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 Annexure-7 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing respondents not to dispense with the service and working of the petitioner and to pay regular monthly salary to him.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Manager, Allahabad Bank, Karwi Branch, Chitrakoot. It is alleged that due to personal bias respondent No. 2 issued charge-sheet against the petitioner on which enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 24.12.1997, in which most of the charges were found proved. As a result the respondent No. 2 awarded major punishment of lowering down of the basic pay of the petitioner by nine stage vide order dated 2.3.1998, Annexure-1 to the petition. It is alleged that the aforesaid order awarding punishment was passed under Regulation 4 (e) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (her...
Smt. Rabia and ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3424
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by defendants. Respondent No. 4 Mohd. Shafi filed a suit against the petitioners who are wife, sons and daughters of his late brother Mohd. Yameen. One of the petitioner is minor. In this case arguments were heard on 18.7.2003 and judgment was reserved with liberty to the learned counsel to file written arguments. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has filed written arguments.2. According to the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 Waqf and respondent No. 4 Mohd. Shaft, the house in dispute is a double storied house constructed by the grandfather of Mohd. Shafi and his brother Mohd. Yameen, that the grandfather Sri Nanhe executed a Waqf deed in 1939 with regard to the house in dispute through which Waqf Al-ul-aulad was created. On the same day on which waqf deed was executed, son of waqif, i.e., Usman Ghani S/o Nahne executed a rent note in favour of his father Nanhe. That after the death of Usman Ghani, Mohd. Shafi, plaintiff ...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC73; (2004)ILLJ980All; (2004)1UPLBEC60
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.6.1998.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The writ petitioners (respondents in this appeal) were appointed as daily rate employees in the P.W.D. and the Minor Irrigation Department of U.P. Government. They filed a writ petition with a prayer for regularization of their services and grant of pay as regular employees. That writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal.4. We have already held in Writ Petition No. 691 of 1988, State of U.P. v. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and Ors., decided on 29.9.2003, that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied to the daily wage employees and they cannot be given the same pay scale as the regular employees. The matter has been discussed in great detail in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and most of the relevant rulings of Supreme Court and this Court have been referred to therein and hence t...
Jubilant Organosys (Formerly Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd.) Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(All)574; [2004]265ITR420(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, dated November 14, 2002, has been challenged.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The assessee is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on March 31, 1995. Against that order a revision was filed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on December 18, 1996. Against that order the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act as the order of the Assessing Officer was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue nor was it erroneous.5. A perusal of the order of the...
Chahan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC464
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the writ petition as desired by them.2. The petitioner, Chahan Singh at the relevant time working on deputation with New Okhla Industrial Development Authority called NOIDA (an authority under Article 12, Constitution of India) created under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.3. NOIDA, initially on its inception did not have its own permanent staff and hence, borrowed peoples on its staff on deputation from other source, e.g.. State Government. Later NOIDA employed, by making regular appointment on its staff, certain persons on its staff. U is admitted that several posts in 'NOIDA' Establishment are still being held by people brought on. deputation from their parent departments in the Government. NOIDA, thus, has two categories of employees-one, those who are appointed by the NOIDA itself and second, those who are employed elsewhere but brought on deputation as stop gap temporary arrangemen...
Kamal Kumar Mehta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC772
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge. The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that he and his wife are living in Ballia and his wife is also in service. The learned single Judge has noted that the petitioner was posted in Ballia for 30 years. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the petitioner is in Ballia only from 1992. Even if that is so, he is in Ballia for 11 years. Learned counsel has relied on a G.O. which directs that ordinarily husband and wife, if both in service, should be posted in the same place. It is well settled that violation of a G.O. is no ground for interference with a transfer order. The petitioner must show violation of a statutory rule or mala fides. Moreover, the G.O. only states that ordinarily husband and wife, if both in service, should be posted together. Thus, this is not meant to be a hard and fast rul...
Nand Kishore and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC773
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.8.2003.3. The petitioners challenged a transfer order before the learned single Judge but their petition was dismissed, hence this appeal.4. We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned single Judge.We fully agree with the view he has taken. We are of the opinion that the Chief Engineer has jurisdiction to make transfer within his own area of authority. Moreover, transfer is an exigency of service. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and even if there is a technical error of law, this Court is not bound to interfere. There are allegations that the petitioners are involved with 'Mafia' in doing land grabbing. This was a sufficient ground for transfer. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 (vide para 11), the Supreme Court observed :'The power under Article 226 is discretionary. I...
Dr. Shiv Mangal Singh Rathore Vs. Ram Jeevan Rathore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC932
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the trial court as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. It appears that the opposite party is the landlord of the disputed shop in which the petitioner is the tenant. The opposite party moved an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') for release of the disputed shop. It was alleged by the opposite parties that he purchased the land in the year 1960 and constructed his house and two shops. Out of two shops one shop was let out to the petitioner at the rent of Rs. 40 per month and another shop was let out to another tenant at the rent of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner also purchased the land in Mohalla Saraln Sub...
Smt. Sheela Devi Chauhan and ors. Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC930
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus against the opposite party No. 2 for not proceeding in any way and staying further proceeding of complaint case bearing No. 2842 of 2002, Smt. Sunita Devi v. Sudhir Singh and Ors., as contained in Annexure-17 to the petition, pending before him as also for quashing the summoning order dated 14.2.2003 (Annexure-18) and the complaint.2. The factual matrix necessitating the filing of this petition is that the opposite party No. 1 was married to the petitioner No. 2 in the year 1996. The petitioner No. 1 is the mother of petitioner No. 2 and mother-in-law of opposite party No. 1. The remaining two petitioners No. 3 and 4 are real elder brothers of petitioner No. 2. The opposite party No. 1, after her marriage, came along with her husband petitioner No. 2 to reside with him at Lucknow of which the petitioner No. 2 is a resident of. According to the op...
Sheo Baran Singh Chauhan Vs. Ordinance Equipment Factory and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC155
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of suspension dated 22.6.93, Annexure-7 to the petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as Secretary of the respondent-Society and to pay full salary. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to hold any enquiry against the petitioner into the charges contained in charge-sheet dated 12.5.92.2. It is alleged in Para 1 of the petition that the petitioner was working as Secretary in the respondent-Society which is Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is alleged in Para 2 of the petition that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary under Section 31 of the Act in 1971 by the then Chairman of the Society and the appointment was approved by the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Kanpur. The respondent No. 3 is a Society of the workers employed in Ordinance Equipment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »