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.
Yeshpal Chaudhari Vs. Director of Education, (Higher Education) U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC411; (2004)1UPLBEC918
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. The petitioner was appointed on honorarium basis as is evident by the appointment letter dated 7.3.2003. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that a person appointed on honorarium (Mandeya) basis has no right vide Dr. Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P., 2002 (3) AWC 1859 : 2002 (2) ESC 427.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a person appointed on honorarium basis cannot be replaced by another person appointed on honorarium basis.3. In our opinion, appointments on honorarium basis are wholly illegal as it is against the provisions of Section 13 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 which permits appointments of the Lecturers in Degree Colleges only after selection by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission. We have held to this effect in Writ Petition No. 44332 of 2003, Malvika Shekhar v. Director of Higher Education, decided on 29.9.2003.4. Section 12 of the U. P. Higher Education Servic...
Ram Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC687
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.8.2003 affirming judgment of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Saharanpur by which land in dispute of Khata No. 145, Plot Nos. 353 and 207/6 was directed to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property by maintaining basic year entry.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner is in actual possession over the land in dispute prior to the date of vesting and in any case he will acquire rights being in possession prior to 30.6.1985 under Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. He further urged that Judgments passed by appellate and revisional authorities to the contrary are vitiated in law and are liable to be quashed.3. In reply to the same, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha said that the judgments were rightly passed in accordance with law as petitioner will not get any right on the land mentioned under Section 132 of U. P. Z. A. and L....
Riaz UddIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC857
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the learned single Judge.3. The controversy is regarding the Committee of Management of Islamia Inter College, Firozabad.4. Under the' Scheme of Administration, the term of office of the Committee of Management is three years from the date of election. In the present case, respondent No. 6, Ghulam Nabi, who is the Manager, was elected on 24.5.2001 and this was approved by the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education on 31st August, 2001.5. Under Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration, the term of the Committee of Management is three years (copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition),6. It is mentioned therein that 'the term of office-bearers and members V (a) and (c) other than ex officio members shall be three years from the date they are chosen, provided that the term of every o...
Kedari Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1158
S. N. Srlvastava, J.1. This case gives glimpses as to what amount of ingenuity and guiles are exercised by someone very proximately related to a hapless disabled minor in grabbing his property. The dispute in the instant case hovers over plot Nos. 59/3. 77, 85/0.69 and 85/0.96 situated in village Moora Semnagar alias pandari, Pargana and tahsll Bisalpur district Pilibhit.2. The facts squeezed out of the findings recorded by the courts below are that Jokhcy Lal father of the respondent No. 4 was the bhumidhar of the plots in question and was entered as such in the revenue record when he expired leaving behind Dwarika Prasad, then aged about one year. It is borne out from the findings that Dwarika Prasad was born in the year 1967 and further that the name of Jokhey continued in the revenue record even after his death and the name of Dwarika Prasad was mutated by an order passed under P.A. 11 on 11.3.1976 subsequently. Jt appears from the record that Munna Lal who was the real (phupha) of...
Raghubar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1866
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal, at the instance of the accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-5-1981 passed by Sri Ram Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in S.T. No. A-60 of 1977 whereby he convicted the accused Raghubar Singh under Sections 147 and 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively thereunder. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In brief, the prosecution story was as under:--In the night intervening 26/27th November, 1976 at about 1.45 a.m. three constables were patrolling in Mohalla Loha Patti, Gudari Bazar and Isratganj of Ballia city. Constables Sheo Lakhan and two others reached there and told the aforesaid patrolling party that 5-6 miscreants were running in the lane and were being followed by Head Constable and others. They asked their colleagues to surround them towards east of the Tiraha at Isratganj. Chauk...
Smt. Gaya Pati Vs. Ayodhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1360
K.S. Rakhra, J.1. This is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1983 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in First Appeal No. 265/1980, whereby he partly allowed appeal and modified the judgment and order dated 1.5.1980, of VIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad in Regular Suit No. 77 of 1978.2. I have heard Sri Chaudhary Shatrughan holding brief of Sri D.P. Singh Advocate for appellant and Sri U.S. Sahai holding brief of Sri H.S. Sahai counsel for the respondent and perused the record.3. The appellant is daughter of Bhagwant from IInd wife while respondent is son from 1st wife, Bhagwant had executed a sale-deed on 7.7.1975 in favour of Gaya Pati appellant and consequent upon it, the name of Gaya Pati on the plots sold, was entered in the Revenue Record on 8.3.1976. Bhagwant died on 20.10.1977. Admittedly, Bhagwant, his son Ayodhya and Bhagwant's second wife Bunda were recorded owners of Khasra Plot No. 2119A, 1791 (Minjumla), 2119B, 1660, 1658...
Abdul Rafiq Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1533
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel.2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Tracer forthwith in the department of Irrigation.3. According to the petitioner, petitioner is an Intermediate and holding the certificate of Draftsman (Civil) and he belongs to minority community. On the basis of certificate issued by Tehsildar, Charkhari to the effect that petitioner is a backward class person and is also physically handicapped, has obtained certificate of draftsman (Civil). After getting the certificate of draftsman (Civil) the petitioner worked from May, 1989 to September, 1989 in the office of the respondent No. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Charkhari, Mahoba and for several other period, which has been referred in Para 5 of the writ petition, and after obtaining 'apprenticesh...
Radio Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN87(All)
M. Katju, J.The facts are covered by a Division Bench decision in CIT v. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co. Ltd. (2003) 131 Taxman 508 (All).2. We, therefore, reframe the question mentioned in the memo of this appeal as follows:'Whether the Guest House expenses were allowable in the relevant assessment year?'3. Following the aforesaid decision, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it disallowed the expenses of Guest House is set aside and we direct that the expenses be allowed under section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act....
Cwt Vs. Agarwal Market (Aop)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN70(All)
ORDER1. Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan for the department and Sri Rakesh Shanker for the assessee.2. This is a Wealth Tax Reference under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following questions are sought to be referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the asset Agarwal Market is to be assessed in the hands of each of the co-owners separately and not in the hands of assessing officer ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that provisions of section 3 and section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act are applicable in this case rather than section 21AA ?'3. Similar application has been allowed in CWT v. Suresh (WT Appeal No. 67 of 1997) UITC 408.4. Hence we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the above questions to us for our opinion.Application is allowed...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Bhagwant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC503; (2004)1UPLBEC455
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal dated 4.4.1989 vide Annexure-3 to the petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on a purely temporary basis as a Basic Health Worker on 12.11.1981 and his service was terminated on 22.6.1985. He filed a claim petition which was allowed by the Tribunal.4. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, and we are of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. It is well-settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post. Hence, there was no need to given, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was a temporary appointee, before terminating his service.5. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it appears that the only ground for allowing the claim petition mentioned in para 5 of the Tribunal's order was that juniors to the petitioner having inferior record of service were retained but his ser...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »