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.
Shiva Ji Singh and ors. Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC867
S. P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.2. The learned counsel representing the respondents who has appeared at this stage has also been heard.3. Perused the record.4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this Special Appeal lie in a narrow compass.5. The Writ Petition No. 52755 of 2002 giving rise to this appeal had been filed by the present appellants praying for the quashing of the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the District Judge, Chandauli-the appointing authority contemplated under Rule 15 of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 as amended dispensing with the services of all the ad hoc appointees in the ministerial cadre w.e.f. 1.11.2002.6. The appellants had also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents which included the District Judge, Chandauli, to regularise their services on the post of Clerks and Stenographers and restraining them from terminating their services.7. In...
Smt. Kavita Agarwal and anr. Vs. Director of Income Tax (investigation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)129; [2003]264ITR472(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the entire search and seizure proceedings in regard to the jewellery found in locker No. B-237 of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 3rd Nov., 2001, and for mandamus directing the respondents to return the jewellery seized by the respondent No. 3 on 3rd Nov., 2001, from the aforesaid locker.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. They were married in December, 1990, and the petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm M/s Lallooji & Sons at 1, Ram Bagh, Allahabad which is registered under the Partnership Act. The firm has its offices and godowns at several places as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition. The names of the partners are mentioned in para 9 of the petition. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 is not a partner of the firm. It is alleged in para 12 of the petitioner that the family of petitioner No...
Panki thermal Power Station Vs. C.K. Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC101; (2004)1UPLBEC144
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This petition has been preferred against the award dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Labour Court (IV), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 12 of 1989 directing thereby the petitioner to give the concerned workman the post and pay scale of lift operator.3. Before giving the facts of the case it is necessary to give the background in which the award in the present case has come to be challenged. The Central Government constituted Central Electricity Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as C.E.W.B.) in the year 1966 for considering the pay revision of various categories in U. P. State Electricity Board. The C.E.W.B. unanimously recommended 21 categories of technical and nontechnical employees for revision of pay scales on the basis of job evaluation of point rating system. The recommendation of the C.E.W.B. were accepted by the State of U. P. on 1.4.1969 and a notification dated 11.2.1971 was issued by the State Governme...
Smt. Gainda Kali Devi and anr. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC247
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.5.1980 passed by Addl. Munsif (III), Pilibhit dismissing the objection of the petitioners filed under Section 47. C.P.C. and the revision was dismissed by the District Judge, Pilibhit on 24.3.1981.3. It appears that respondent Nos. 3 to 10 to the writ petition filed a Suit No. 180 of 1968 for specific performance of a contract to sell plot No 141, area 10 bighas, out of 18 bighas to the plaintiffs on 10.2.1976. The suit was decreed and application for execution was filed, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 71 of 1977. The judgment debtor filed objection, inter alia, stating that execution of sale will result in fragmentation of holding and is void under Section 168A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.4. The execution court rejected the objections holding that this plea was not taken in suit, hence it is barred by principles of res-judicata and s...
Chief Engineer and ors. Vs. Pancham Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC81
M. Katju, J.1. These 19 special appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. These special appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.11.1998 by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and cancelled the termination orders of the petitioners and directed that they shall be treated in continuous service and shall get their salaries.4. Out of these 19 special appeals, four of them relate to Azamgarh and the remaining 15 relate to Allahabad. Although the principle of law applicable to all these 19 cases are the same, there is one factual difference between the Azamgarh cases and the Allahabad cases. The four appeals relating to Azamgarh, i.e., Special Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 69 of 1999 relate to writ petitioners who were appointed and worked on temporary basis for a few days, (though as contended by the learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam, it was against the clear direction of t...
Ahibaran Singh Kushwaha Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC257; (2004)1UPLBEC180
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard the above learned counsel for the parties.2. Notice given prior to filing of the writ petition as contemplated under Rules of Court and as is evident from the order sheet, time granted by Court, but no counter-affidavit has come forth on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Viz., District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj/Farrukhabad and Accounts Officer, Office of District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj/Farrukhabad) who are supposed to bring on record all necessary facts faithfully being Government Officers, supposed to assist the Court dispassionately as expected to have no personal interest or axe to grind and lastly because they are presumed to have possession of all the original record relevant to the case.3. It is high time when Court must (both High Court and Supreme Court) give a fresh look to this problem and erring officials must be brought to book and bear the desired punishment both in service and personally to indemnify harass otherwise for deliberate neglig...
Lochan Prasad Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Rashtriy ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC403
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the award in adjudication case No. 3 of 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi.3. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as 'beldar' against a permanent post on dally wages w.e.f. 26.3.1991 and had worked under the Executive Engineer P.W.D. Rashtriya Nirman Khand Jyoti Chauraha, Bareilly, continuously for more than 240 days in a year that he was denied duty by the respondent orally w.e.f. 26.1.1993 without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly alleging illegal termination of service which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1331 of 1983. When the efforts for settlement of dispute by the Regional Conciliation Officer failed, the following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Var...
Vinod Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC783
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the result dated 19.12.2001 promoting the Scale I officers to Scale II officers in Farrukhabad Gramin Bank and for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 19.4,2001 and the examination held on the basis of the aforesaid resolution.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioners were directly recruited as officers in Farrukhabad Gramin Bank, and since then had been discharging their duties efficiently and honestly. True copies of the appointment orders are Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Similar appointment order was passed in favour of petitioner No. 4 in the year 1984 and it is alleged that the performance of the petitioners throughout had been meritorious.4. The respondent Bank is governed by the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks' Act, 1976. For the purpose of appointment of the officers under Section 17 Rules have ...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Revising A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC871
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.10.1984 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Stamps Act and order of Additional District Collector (Finance and Revenue) Varanasi, dated 30.11.1983 and for a direction to him for endorsing certificate on proposed sale deed certifying that full stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner.3. No counter-affidavit was filed by the State in spite of time being granted twice but a counter-affidavit filed on 29.5.2003 is on record, which was not served on the petitioners.4. The petitioner is a public limited company. It entered into an agreement of sale for purchasing the land, building and machinery of Central Jute Mills Ltd. Sahupuri, Varanasi. A draft sale deed was prepared and was presented to the Collector, Varanasi under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for giving his opinion on 6.2.1981 with regard to proper stamp duty, chargeable on the said deed. The ...
Tika Ram Yadav and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC247
M. Katju, J.1. The problem of traffic congestion, traffic jam and parking has become a headache in most of the cities, not only in India, but in most of the countries of the World. For instance, in Allahabad about twenty five years ago one could go to the Civil Lines area on his vehicle without any problem, but today Civil Lines has become like Chowk and it is a headache to go there on a car in the evening. In Kanpur City to enter the city side from the railway station is like entering a beehive. The same is the position in the cities of Lucknow, Varanasi, Agra etc. Even the capital of the country, New Delhi has a terrible traffic problem. All this calls for careful traffic regulation by the concerned authorities so that there may be free flow of traffic and proper places for parking vehicles.2. The present petition relates to Meerut City where the Nagar Nigam by the impugned bye-laws dated 7.2.2003 (published in the U.P. Gazette dated 15.3.2003) has imposed licence fee on the buses @ ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »