Allahabad Court November 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.
Oswal Agencies and anr. Vs. Recovery Officer, D.R.T. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC841; II(2004)BC395
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Sri Sanjeev Singh appearing for respondent No. 4 raises preliminary objection that recovery certificate impugned in the present writ petition amounts to order within the meaning of Section 31A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for which the appeal is provided under Section 20 to the appellate Tribunal and since the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.2. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the order that has been challenged by this writ petition is nullity and the money sought to be recovered by means of the impugned order is wholly illegal in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act which requires to deposit the amount of debt due on filing appeal will not come in his way and since pure question of law is being raised the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal before the a...
Umesh Kumar and anr. Vs. Chairman, U.P. Forest Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC44
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. These two petitions are interknil together by reason of consideration of common issues involved and for facility of adjudication of the controversy by a composite decision. The first petition has been preferred by petitioners Umesh Kumar and Virendra Kumar Arya conjointly assailing their non-consideration and consequent supersession in the matter of promotion from Assistant Logging Officer/Deputy Logging Officer to the post of Logging Officer while the second petition has been preferred by petitioner Umesh Kumar alone questioning the validity of the order whereby respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been given promotion and the petitioner has been denied yet further promotion to the post of Divisional Logging Officer.2. It is necessary to unfold only so much facts as may bear upon the controversy involved in this petition. The petitioner, to begin with, entered the service in the year 1983 as Assistant/Deputy Logging Officer. In the year 2002 the said post was re-designat...
Phool Chand and anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC48
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, by which the said authority dismissed application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act preferred by the petitioners in revision.2. Necessary facts may be recapitulated and they are that deceased Tapsi father of the petitioner preferred revision against the judgment dated 22.4.1983 on 31.5.1983 passed by the appellate authority. During the pendency of the revision, the aforesaid Tapsi breathed his last and he was accordingly substituted by heirs and legal representatives who are the petitioners in the instant petition. Subsequently, it transpired that the revision was filed belatedly and consequently, application under Section 5 attended with the affidavit of the learned counsel representing the petitioners was filed. However, the revision came to be dismissed on the premises that application under Section 5 of the In...
Riyaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Committee of Management, Muslim Anglo Hindustani ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC487
R.K. Agrawal, J.By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Riyaz Ahmad Khan seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 21st August, 2003 and 22nd August, 2003, filed as Annexures-10 and 10A and also the order of the Managing Committee dated 7th August, 2003, filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), Varanasi Region, Varanasi ; Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Allahabad ; Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow and the Special Secretary, Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow for passing an order for promoting the petitioner to the post of the Lecturer after setting aside the order of the committee of management dated 7th August, 2003.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :In the distr...
Jagtendra Singh Jadon Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC555
Vineet Saran, J.1. Since all the three writ petitions arise out of same cause of action, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. Three posts of L.T. grade Assistant Teachers having fallen vacant in R.A. Janta Inter College, Paigu, district Firozabad, between the years 1988 and 1992, Committee of Management of the institution noticed such vacancies to the Secondary Education Service Commission through the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad on 21.4.1992. It has been alleged that since there was urgent need of teachers in the college, thus, the Committee of Management advertised for filling up the three posts on ad hoc basis in the Newspaper 'Dainik Aaj'. In response, several candidates, including the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 30390 of 1993 and 23270 of 1993, namely, Jagtendra Singh Jadon, Prabhu Dayal and Balbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners first set) ; as well as petitioners of Writ Petition No. 11728 of 1994, namely...
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC533; (2004)1UPLBEC849
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Ghaziabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Noida') seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 26th June, 1990, passed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, and also the reference made by the State Government under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and other consequential reliefs.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:According to the petitioner, it is an authority created under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Area Development Act, for the object of development of land for industrial, commercial and residential purposes in the industrial area in Noida in the district of Ghaziabad, now Gautam Buddh Nagar. K.D. Sharma, respondent No. 3, was employed on daily wages as a casual labour ...
Ratnakar Chaubey Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC538; (2004)1UPLBEC446
Vineet Saran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.7.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi respondent No. 1. Subsequently a prayer has been added for quashing the order dated 31.3,2000, passed by the Director of Education.2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in the institution of respondent No. 3. His ad hoc appointment as C.T. grade teacher was initially approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.11.1984. The approval was thereafter extended upto 30.6.1986 vide order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 10.10.1985. Thereafter, when the appointment of the petitioner was not further extended by the Committee of Management, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15176 of 1987, Ratnakar Chaubey v. District Inspector of Schools, in which initially an interim order was passed on 23:11.1987, but was subsequently vacated on 18.3.1988. In the said writ petition respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar V...
Mahaveer Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC855
S. N. Srivastava, J.1. Litigative dispute in the instant petition having originated in the year 1901, has been erupting at regular intervals like proverbial sphinx emerging from ashes. The initial dispute culminated in the award dated April 2, 1901. Now the matter having journeyed upto the Apex Court has again come up before this Court by means of the present petition in which the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.7.2003 assed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar whereby the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh ostensibly holding that the decision of the Apex Court has been misconstrued and has not been implemented in letter and spirit.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the rights and shares of the parties stood clinched by the judgment of the Apex Court dated 6.3.1984 and the only question that remained was to levy ...
Suresh Dubey Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC732; (2004)2UPLBEC1876
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar learned standing counsel for the State and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. In this petition, the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 21.2.1990 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the D.I.O.S., Ballia, has declared Sri Kapil Dev Upadhaya as senior to the respondent No. 4 Shri Sambhu Nath Shukla, and the petitioner Sri Suresh Dubey. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Laxmi Rajdevi Intermediate College, Ballia (in short called the 'college') prior to the respondent and got approval on 28.10.1970 in respect of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and D.I.O.S., Ballia, declaring respondent Nos. 3 and 4 senior to the petitioner by virtue of their age Is illegal and the decision to this effect taken by the D.I.O.S., Ballia, on 21.2.1990 is erroneous and was challenged before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an...
Harish Kumar Chhabra and Parveen Kumar Arora Vs. Cegat and Commr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC308; 2004(175)ELT19(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.2. The petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the CEGAT, New Delhi to decide their appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit of the central excise duty assessed and to stay the recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.3. It appears that petitioner has filed an appeal before the CEGAT, which is pending, and the CEGAT has passed an order dated 5.10.2001 Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which M/s. Sameer Ispat, of which petitioners claim to be Directors, was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs towards the duty liability, and Appellant No. 2 Harish Kumar Chhabra (who is petitioner No. 1 in this writ petition) was directed to deposit 5 lakhs, and Appellant No. 3 Praveen Kumar Arora (who is petitioner No. 2 in this writ petition) to deposit Rs. 50,000.00. All these deposits were to be made within twelve weeks from the date of the order dated 5.10.2001. On making thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »