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.
Ashok Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC249
ORDERS.P. Srivastava and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant.2. It is not disputed that as against six vacancies of the posts of Stenographer (Hindi), no candidate could be found to be suitable for appointment and all the six posts remained unfilled.3. It may be noticed that the aforesaid candidates in question had to appear in the written test as well as test of shorthand (Hindi) and typing. As pointed out by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Manjula Devi v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 4 SCC 646, the purpose and object of the competitive examination is to select most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. It was further indicated that having regard to the nature and characteristics of a competitive examination, it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks, which the Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice...
Committee of Management, Rohan Singh Shiksha Sansthan Junior High Scho ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC248
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, Committee of Management, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers ;'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution with effect from 1.3.1991 and pay arrears of salary of teachers and other employees of the institution under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978 with effect from 1.3.1991. (b) issue any other and further suitable writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) allow this writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.' 2. A perusal of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner clearly demonstrate that petitioner's institution claims sanction for grants-in-aid for the institution with effect from 1st March, 1991 and payment of the arrears of salary to the teachers and other employees of the ins...
C.K. Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC288
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The State Government acquired 9.8438 acre of land in village Dundhera district Ghaziabad for planned development of the area. The claimant's land measuring 8 biswa was also acquired under the same project. The notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 25th June, 1976. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9th November, 1976 and possession was taken on 28.2.1977/24th May, 1977. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave the award on 2nd August, 1979. Aggrieved against the said Award the appellant filed a reference application and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard. Reference was made to the court below. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 11 per sq. yard and granted solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land acquired. He also granted 12% as additional compensation from the date of notification under Sect...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC643; (2004)ILLJ930All
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These three writ petitions are heard and disposed of together, as they raises common questions of law.2. Heard the petition in the revised list. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present.3. The petitioner by means of this writ petition, challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, dated 8.7.1983. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as under :'That admittedly the contesting respondent was employee of the petitioner-corporation and he has been punished by the order dated 29th November, 1980 by which punishment has been imposed for realisation of a sum of Rs. 2,977.40 from the contesting respondent in instalments. The contesting respondent preferred a claim petition before the prescribed authority under the provision of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 that the amount sought to be recovered in instalments pursuant to the impugned order dated...
Jawahar Singh Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC658; (2004)1UPLBEC521
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-workman, who is an employee of Canara Bank by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the award of the Central Government-cum-Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 13th September, 1996, passed in Industrial Dispute No. 213 of 1990, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'10' to the writ petition.The following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication ;'Whether the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank was Justified in voluntary retiring Sri Jawahar Singh Clerk Hathras Branch w.e.f. 8.12.1988? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?'2. In short the case set up by the workman concerned Is that he was working as Clerk with the respondent-Bank from 9th August, 1976. Earlier the concerned workman was posted in Aligarh Branch and subsequently he was transferred to Hathras Branch and there he remained absent from 25th April, 1987 to 14th...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC67
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-workman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 15th October, 1984, passed in Adjudication Case No. 82 of 1983, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy where of is annexed as Annexure-'26' to the writ petition.2. The Following dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government on 14th September, 1983 in exercise of its powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication.^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedfcuksn dqekj] fyfid dh lsok;sa fnukad 22-10-82 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr **3. The Labour Court issued notices to both the parties, namely, the employers as well as the workman concerned. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced their evidence. In short, the case set up by the workman is that he was employed by the em...
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC64
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-employers U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the award of the Labour Court, U.P., Agra dated 31st October, 1995, passed in Adjudication Case No, 7 of 1985, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'I' to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short 'Act'), to the Labour Court for adjudication :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedjfo dqekj xqIrk] iq= Jh lqUnjyky xqIrk voj vfHk;Urk dh fnukad 3-5-83 lslsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfudgS ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr **3. After receipt of the reference, case was registered and notices were sent to both the parties, namely, the employers as well as the workman concerned, who have exchanged the plea...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Ajanta Dairy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC244(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. All these revisions are directed against the order of Tribunal dated February 6, 1992 relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and for the assessment years 1987-88 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.2. In all the revisions following question of law has been raised :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that amount of freight deducted in bills not to be part of turnover despite the fact that it was charged in the bills and ownership of the goods was of the seller till the delivery taken by the purchaser of the destination? 3. In the revision relating to the assessment year 1987-88, apart from the above question, one more question has been raised--Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified to accept the books of account of the dealer for the assessment year 1987-88 despite the fact incriminating eviden...
J.M. Bakshi and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2007)6VST702(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dated August 28, 1992 relating to the assessment year 1988-89.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged in the business of providing cranes on hire, having its office at 16, Babrala, Bombay. As per the agreement with M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., for providing one crane on hire, the applicant had dispatched one crane bearing registration No. HR-29-1716 against builty No. 1036, dated February 13, 1990. For the import of the said crane M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., had given one form 31 No. FW 89-0211689. At the check-post, driver of the vehicle submitted the consignment note, builty, insurance cover note and form 31. The check-post officer seized the vehicle on the ground that under the contract for hire, the applicant was owner of the vehicle, and therefore, form 31 should be of applicant and not of M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd. In pursuance of the seizure order a penalty proceeding under Section 15...
Smt. Ruchira Vinayak and ors. Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC217
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition. Suit filed by the landlord/respondent for eviction of the tenant petitioner has been decreed by both the courts below on the ground that the Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) does not apply to the building in dispute by virtue of Notification No. S.R.O. 17.2.1982 and no ground of eviction as mentioned in Section 20 (2) of the Act is necessary to be proved by the landlord. The house in dispute which is in the form of an out house of a bungalow is situate within the cantonment limits of Meerut. Earlier the petition was allowed through Judgment dated 13.12.1996 and matter was remanded to the Revisional Court to determine the question of applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. However, the Supreme Court through judgment dated 19.8.1997 delivered in S.L.P. No. 8378 of 1997 reversed the Judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for deciding the said question itself.2. In exercise of the powers conferred b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »