Allahabad Court March 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.
Dr. Shrikant Vs. Prof. Y.C. Simhadri, Vice-chancellor, B.H.U. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2172
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.8,2000 and 20/22.5.2000 passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. . 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Ophthalmology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on 31.12.1984. Thereafter he was selected and appointed as Reader and he Joined on the post on 5.5.1993. It is alleged in paragraph 5 that his work and conduct has been satisfactory. The petitioner's wife Dr. (Smt.) Neelam Mittal is also working as Senior Lecturer in Dental Surgery in the Institute of Medical Sciences in the same University since April, 1989 and her work is also satisfactory.4. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that the petitioner's wife was awarded a . Commonwealth Fellowship in United Kingdom with effect from 1.3.2000 to 28.2.2000. For this purpose she applied for leave which was granted to her vide ...
Quality Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. the Nagar Mahapalika and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All288
M. Katju, J. 1. This Writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur not to realize Octroi from the petitioner on the grounds received by the petitioner at Central Goods Shed, Kanpur Railway Station which is transported to the petitioners factory site at Bindki Road, Fatehpur.2. Heard learned counsellor the parties.3. The petitioner is a registered company registered under the Indian Companies Act which has its factory at Bindki Road, Fatehpur in which it manufactures steel tubes and pipes. For this manufacture the petitioner uses raw material e.g. steel hot rolled steel coils, Zinc and other materials. The steel is purchased by the petitioner from the Steel Authority of India Ltd. from steel plants at Purgapur, Bokaro and Rourkela. Similarly the petitioner purchases Zinc from the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd. Kanpur, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Ghaziabad and Udaipur.4. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the peti...
Rajesh Sewani and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4643
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1.This revision is direction against the order dated 17-10-1998 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoit Affected Area), Lalitpur.2. Sri G.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionists. Sri A.N. Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. have been heard.3. By the impugned order the Special Judge has taken cognizance of an offence under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. against the revisionists-accused and summoned them through non-bailable warrant.4. Opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint before the Special Judge in respect of the occurrence in between night of 26/27-9-1997. Affidavits and documents were produced in support of the complaint.5. The Special Judge called for a police report. The Special Judge did not take cognizance after the receipt of the police report by order dated 18-11-1997. The opposite party No. 2 approached the High Court against the said order and the High Court directed that Special Judge may take decision of his...
Janki and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2370
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Eight persons, namely, Janki, Mangrey, Ram Bilas, Smt. Gilha alias Gula, Rohan, Moti, Sirdar and Bhognath were tried by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC (on three counts), 324/149 IPC, and 323/149 IPC. In addition Ram Bilas, Smt. Gilha, Rohan, Moti, Sirdar and Bhognath were tried for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and Janki and Mangrey for that punishable under Section 147 IPC.Vide Judgment and order dated 15-10-1984 the learned Judge found all of them guilty on the said charges and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated herein after:--(i) Under Section 302/149 IPC to imprisonment for life;(ii) Under Section 324/149 IPC to one year's R. I.; and(iii) Under Section 323/149 IPC to six months' R.I.In addition, he convicted and sentenced Ram Bilas, Gilha, Rohan, Moti, Sirdar and Bhognath to one year's R.I, for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC and Janki and Mangrey to six mon...
Rajesh Kumar Shah Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1180
M. Katju, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition).2. We have carefully perused the said order and find no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has held that in view of the provisions of Sections 4 (5) and 4 (6) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as he has not availed of the remedy by way of appeal/ revision.3. The petitioner has a right of appeal/revision under the U.P. Police Regulations, hence his claim petition has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Shri Sarat Sharma v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, 1996 (14) LCD 279. That decision only says that Section 4 (5) does not create an absolute bar as it uses the word 'ordinarily'. In our opinion, it was not open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, straightaway be...
Mrs. Maimuna Khatoon and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1687b
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.1.2003 passed in Suit No. 583 of 1995, Shiv Kumar Tripathi v. Abdul Rahman and Anr. by which Application 133 (C) moved by the defendant seeking permission to file one document i.e., the voter list in support of his contention, was rejected on the ground that the suit was fixed for final hearing of the argument and the stage for filing the document has already gone long back. The learned trial court has also referred in the impugned order that the Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been deleted by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1999 ( Act No. 46 of 1999) and the validity of this Amending Act with regard to the deletion of Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.2. I have heard the learned couns...
Makhan Singh Vs. Xith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All136; 2003(3)AWC1908
D.P. Singh, J. 1. Pleadings have been exchanged and counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition itself may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court. 2. The petitioner filed Suit No. 693 of 1987 for cancellation of sale deed dated 9.4.1984 and further that the petitioner be declared owner of the disputed plot. The contesting respondents filed their written statement. A number of issues were framed on 2lst March, 1988. However, subsequently an additional issue was framed on 10th February, 1989, which was to the following effect : 'Prastut Vad per jo ki bainame samvyavhar per adharit hai per Adhiniyam 45 San 1988 ka kya prabhao hat?' 3. This issue related to as to whether the provisions of Act No. 45 of 1988 dealing with 'benami' transactions were attracted. The trial court had also framed other issues including the issue Nos. 5 and 9 as to whether any cause of action had arisen and as to what relief the plaintiff is entitled to. The trial court fixed 27.2.1989 for dis...
Seth Banarsi Dass (D.) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1967
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11th May, 1978 and 9th December, 1976, passed by the appellate authority and the prescribed authority respectively under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, (for short 'the Act') as well as the notices dated 26th June, 1974, 7th December, 1974 and 3rd June, 1976, contained in Annexures-3 to 14 to the writ petition.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, are that the land in dispute was stated to have been acquired by Hindu Undivided Family of the petitioners of which Seth Banarsi Das was the karta before the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The land in dispute was also shown as owned by H.U.F. in income-tax department. After the enforcement of the U. P. Z...
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1995; [2004(101)FLR1005]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 27.10.1998, passed by the labour court in Adjudication Case No. 39 of 1990. After transfer from Rampur, this case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 132 of 1994 at Bareilly.3. Out of 13 employees whose case was espoused by the Hydroelectric Employees Union, Lucknow, the case of Sajid Husain son of Ram Singh was not pressed by the Union before the labour court on the ground that they had continuously not worked for 240 days. The dispute thus remained in respect of only ten employees.4. The case of the respondents-workmen before the labour court was that they were employed on 1.1.1976, as daily rated coolie and continuously worked upto 1.2.1979. It is submitted by the counsel that the services of these workmen were terminated on 1.2.1979 without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of provisions of Sections 6N and 6Q of the U. ...
Feru Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1987
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This case furnishes a speaking instance of how the paradox of 'Litigant Interest is Supreme' coined in the mid seventies by the Judiciary is being observed is consolidation courts having all the trappings of a court of law resulting in compelling a hapless litigant to knock every door in the hierarchy seeking redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Having endured all the odds and travails for three years, the petitioner has finally landed in this Court by means of the present petition.2. A brief resume of necessary facts is that the petitioner was allotted chaks in his original holdings at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer including Chak comprising in plot No. 774. In plot No. 774 which comprises in his original holding, it is alleged, is installed tube-well of the petitioner- the only source of irrigation to his crops. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 who were also allotted chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer preferred an appeal b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »