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.
Ganpat Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2126
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.8.1999 by which the learned revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondents setting aside the order dated 8.1.1991, passed by the trial court allowing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called C.P.C.).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed Suit No. 46 of 1989 against the respondents/ defendants for injunction, i.e., restraining them to raise any construction over the land in dispute. Application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1. C.P.C. was also moved and for deciding the same, trial court appointed a Commissioner who submitted the report on 14.3.1989 stating that the construction was being raised. Within a period of one month from the date of the institution of the plaint, an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. wa...
Dhan Prasad and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4127
M.C. Jain, J.1. Seven persons, namely, I. Dhan Prasad, 2. Jag Mohan, 3. Desh Raj, 4. Madan, 5. Kishori, 6. Kunwar Lal and 7. Kamta were tried in S.T. No. 191 of 1980 before Sri Manphool Singh, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Out of them, Madan Lal, Kunwar Lal and Kamta were acquitted whereas rest came to be convicted by Judgment and order dated 18-11-1981 under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Each of them was also convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. They are in appeal before this Court. Out of them Desh Raj died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal has, therefore, abated so far as he is concerned. At present this Court of appeal is concerned only with three appellants, namely Dhan Prasad, Jag Mohan and Kishori.2. The incident occurred on 12-4-1980 in the Village Budera, Police Station Panwari Dist...
Anjana Kumari Patel and anr. Vs. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1714
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are two in numbers, have challenged the order dated 27th December, 2002, passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Aarazi Lines, Varanasi, the respondent No. 1, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures-3A and 3B to the writ petition, whereby their services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioners, who were appointed on 27th December, 2001, as Aanganbari Karyakatri, are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, as stated above, which says that since the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari has made the selection of the petitioners for appointment and the list submitted by the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari pending decision at the level of the District Magistrate and without waiting the decision of the District Magistrate, the petitioner...
Brijesh Singh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2322; [2003(97)FLR1064]
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the contesting respondents.2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 29.1.2003, whereby the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of a departmental enquiry.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that perusal of the impugned order will demonstrate that the petitioner cannot be blamed for disobeyance of the Government order dated 17.8.2002 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Even if this argument is correct, then that will be a defence by the petitioner as and when charge-sheet is served on him. Rule 4 (1) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, confers a right of suspension pending conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of mine wherein I have relied up...
Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1118
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. In view of the order that I purpose to pass, it is not necessary to invite a counter affidavit.2. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 21st February, 2003, passed by Respondent No. 2, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby the Commandant, 38th Battalian, P.A.C. Aligarh informed the petitioner that under the provisions of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, departmental enquiry will be conducted against the petitioner by me. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner giving reference of Annexure-'2' to the writ petition, which is a copy of the letter/complaint dated 18th April, 2000 on the basis of which a F....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(All)573; [2003]262ITR45(All)
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that incurring expenses on boarding and lodging facilities given to auditors and Government and semi-Government servants visiting the factory did not amount to entertainment and that it should be deemed a necessary expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenditure which according to him was in the nature of entertainment expenditure, vide order dated November 15, 1979. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that the disallowance of entertainment expe...
Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Thakur Narendra Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1670
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972, Kheri in Rent Case No. 2 of 2002, Thakur Narendra Singh v. Smt. Maya Devi, allowing the application under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, for restoring the supply of electricity.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.3. The revisionist has let out her house to the defendant-Opposite party No. 1 on 16.12.1997 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,700 per month. The electricity expenses were to be paid separately. It was alleged in the suit that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not pay monthly rent and the electricity charges in spite of the notices to him. On 9.5.2001, the notice determining the tenancy was pasted on the gate of the house. The plaintiff demanded Rs. 62,900 as rent and Rs. 6,627 as electricity...
Regional Director, Central Region and ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1784
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Writ Petition No. 4911 of 2002 arise out of orders dated 6.9.2000 and 9.7.2000 (Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 137 of 1993 ; whereas Writ Petition No. 4912 of 2002 arises out of orders dated 6.11.2000 and 21.8.2001 (Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition) passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 779 of 1992.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 4911 of 2002 approached the Tribunal against the termination order dated 20.5.1992. These two respondents along with one Bachchan Yadav (respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 4912 of 2002) were appointed as Assistant Instructors by the appointment letters dated 24/25.2.1992 and their termination order is dated 20.5.1992. At this stage, it is also relevant to state here that Sri Bachchan Yadav had also filed O.A. No. 779 of 1992 which was allowed for the reasons given in O.A. No. 137...
T.C. Misra Vs. Chancellor, C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Tec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1814
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned resolution dated 23.11.2001, Annexure-18 to the writ petition, termination order dated 27.11.2001, Annexure-19 to the writ petition and the order of the Chancellor dated 19.4.2002, Annexure-23 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director in Regional Extension Service Centre (Rice Milling) vide appointment letter dated 18.12.1978. He was subsequently selected and appointed as Joint Director (Rice Milling) under the Scheme of Regional Extension Service Centre (Rice Milling) of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the University), vide order dated 12.7.1984. On abolition of the Regional Extension Service Centre, the petitioner was adjusted/absorbed against the vacant post of Research Engineer in the Department of Agricultural Engineering at Kanpur vide order dated 8.8.1996, Annexure-1. By t...
Raghu Raj Pratap Singh Alias Raja Bhaiya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2106
Jagdish Bhalla, J. 1. Initially, Writ Petition No. 1107 (MB) of 2003, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed before this Court and when the hearing was going on, Writ Petition No. 1232 (MB) of 2003 ; Dhananjay Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 1206 (MB) of 2003 ; Vimla Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. were also filed. Since the controversy involved in the above three writ petitions was almost identical in nature, all the above mentioned writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1107/MB/2003, namely, Raghuraj Pratap Singh is a Member of Legislative Assembly from the Kunda Constituency, district Pratapgarh. Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1232/MB/2003, namely, Dhananjay Singh is also a Member of Legislative Assembly from Rari Constituency, district Jaunpur. Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1206/MB/2003, namely, Vimla Devi and others are the electorat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »