Allahabad Court February 2003 Judgments
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Iliyas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC854; (2003)1UPLBEC922
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 passed by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 1991. The contesting respondents have also filed a cross-objection.2. The land of the claimants-respondents was acquired for the purposes of construction of a canal by the State Government, although possession had been taken before the land acquisition proceedings. The possession was taken in the year 1980 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was made on 14th December, 1988. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.4.1989. The land in question is Khasra Plot No. 39 in village Imiliya, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh. The area of acquired land is 532 karis. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award on 7.1.1991 against which a reference application was made in which the claimants-respondents claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.K. Ghosh and anr. Vs. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1316b; (2003)1UPLBEC704
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 26.8.1999 passed by the Chancellor, University of Allahabad setting aside the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Reader in the department of the Physics, Allahabad University and directing the Registrar to re-advertise the post for holding fresh selection to the post in question,2. Briefly, stated the facts are that three posts of Reader in the department of the Physics of Allahabad' University (in short the 'University') were advertised on 30.1.1995 Inviting the applications for selection/appointment to the post of Reader in the Physics department.The date for submission of the application was till 28.2.1995. In the advertisement, however, a clause was added that in exceptional cases the application form may be entertained after the last date under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, One post was reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, one post was reserved for a candidate belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Ramesh Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1357; (2003)2UPLBEC1095
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The present special appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8027 of 1992, whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to treat the respondents-petitioners entitled for pay scale of Rs. 1,350-30-1,440-40-1,800-E.B.-50-2,200 from the date on which it was admissible to the employees working in the post of Machine Man Offset under the Government order dated 12.4.1990, and the balance of the amount which has not been paid to the petitioners for the period after 12.4.1990 to 31.7.1996 shall be paid to them with a period of six months from the date a copy of the order passed in the said writ petition, is filed before the appropriate authority. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are that the respondents-writ petitioners, at the relevant period, were posted as Assistant Machine Operators Offset,...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1326b; (2004)ILLJ260All
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 15.9.2001 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the order dated 29.7.2000 Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent No. 3 is a company registered under the Companies Act, and it is a Government Corporation. The petitioner was an employee of the Corporation and he was charge-sheeted for financial Irregularities. True copy of the charge-sheet dated 19.11.1997 is Annexure-9 to the petition. A perusal of the same shows that there were serious allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner. The petitioner sent reply to the charge-sheet vide Annexure-10 and thereafter an enquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty. True copy of the enquiry report is Annexure-S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner illegally and with oblique motive of personal gain manipul...
Tag this Judgment!Pravina Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR173]; (2003)IILLJ507All
M. Katju, J.1. Despite order dated February 14, 2003 no reply has been filed by the respondents to this application dated November 13, 2002.2. By our judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25986 of 1995 decided on May 2, 2001 we had quashed the order terminating the service of the petitioner and the orders of the other authorities and we directed that the petitioner will be reinstated within a month and will get all back wages and other benefits treating her service not to have been terminated with 12% interest from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. Against that judgment an SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.3. When a termination order is set aside then in the eye of law it has to be deemed that the termination never took place. Hence he/she becomes entitled to all the salary, allowances, benefits etc. which he/she would have received if his/her services would not have been terminated.4. Hence, we direct that all allowances and other benefits claimed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Singh Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All226
ORDERD.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri. N.D. Keshari learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and they request that this writ petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court.3. The dispute relate to a trust known as 'Kalimath' situated at Lakshmi Kund, Varanasi and Lakshmanpura Math situated in Lakshmanpura, Varanasi. A suit No. 21 of 1962 was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main relief claimed in the suit was for removing the trustees and appointing new ones in their place. Another relief was sought for framing a scheme for administration of the trust. This suit was decreed. In pursuance of the decree Kamta Tiwari, Pheka Tiwari were removed from Mahantship of the said trust and Bhalchand Sharma, Chandra Nath Yogeshwar, Jagannath Singh (petitioner herein), Paripurna Nand and Batukna...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reshma Khatoon ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC388; [2003(97)FLR854]; (2003)IILLJ1022All; (2003)2UPLBEC1145
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 3,63,877.50 as compensation to the claimants by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on account of the untimely death of deceased Nazakat in the course of employment as a driver of a Truck.2. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after carefully considering the evidence and the materials as brought on record had come to the conclusion that at the time of death Nazakat was aged about 30 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The owner of the offending motor vehicle had been examined in this case who had certified that the deceased was being paid an amount of Rs. 3500/- per month towards his salary.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the Tribunal returned on the question of the income of the deceased. The Commissioner has also returned a finding that the deceased was not an un...
Tag this Judgment!Azadi Bachao Andolan and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All290
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash Notifications dated 3-3-2000 and 1-3-2001 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) and further a declaration that the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution of India as it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submitted a plan to set up a Petroleum Refinery in Uttar Pradesh in order to satisfy the growing demand of petroleum products like petrol, M.S. Diesel, Kerosene, cooking gas etc. to the State Government and requested for acquisition of land near Shankargarh in Allahabad District of Uttar Pradesh which was classified as backward area. The State Government approved the proposal and issued notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act which was published in official gazette on 3-3-2000 indicating that the land was required for planned industrial development. Bharat Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3921
M.C. Jain, J. 1.There are three appellants, namely, Bhupendra. Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 10-12-1996 passed by Sri K. K. Tyagi, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S. T. 369 of 1994. All of them have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- . In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one year, 2/3rd of the fine, if realised, has been ordered to be paid to the widow of the deceased Surendra Singh. The appellants Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar are real brothers being sons of Tarif Singh whereas appellant Bhupendra is their cousin brother. Two persons, namely, Vijai Pal Singh and Surendra were murdered in the incident. Two others, namely, Tarif Singh and Prem Singh were also tried for the said offence under Section 120B, I.P.C., but they were acquitted.2. The brief resume of ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Narayan Sheohare Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1316
M. Katju, J.1. Heard Smt. Manjoo Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.2. The petitioner appeared in the U. P. Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2000. The advertisement for the examination appeared on 4.3.2000. The petitioner filled in his form before the prescribed date, appeared in the examination and was declared successful. He also appeared in the interview. The result was thereafter declared but because the scaling method was adopted, it was struckdown by this Court in Writ Petition No. 32802 of 2001 by the Judgment dated 3.10.2002. Against that judgment Special Leave Petition is pending in the Supreme Court.3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the caste of Kalar and is an O.B.C. as mentioned in the notification of the Governor dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Since the petitioner filled in the form before the said notification, obviously he could not mention therein that he was in O.B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »