Allahabad Court July 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.
Dinesh Prasad Vs. Kapil Dev, Director, Social Welfare and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2591
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 6. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in primary vidyalaya, in which he was appointed on 22.4.1996 by letter Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner joined the service on 23.4.1996. However, the petitioner was stopped from working and, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 47203 of 1999, in which counter-affidavit was called and the following interim order was also passed :'Since the petitioner had been appointed on 22nd April, 1996 vide appointment letter of the same date, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, there is no provision in law for stopping the petitioner to do work by an oral order. It is directed that the petitioner shall continue to do work, if he has been working prior to 1.7.1999.' 2. It is alleged that the order of this Court was served on Sri B. P. Sharma, District Socia...
Madhuban Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Recovery Officer, Debt Re ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC433
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from proceedings further with Recovery Case No. 354 of 2002, State Bank of India v. Madhuban Apparels Private Limited and Ors. till his application for recall of the order dated 29.11.2002 is decided.2. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties. 3. It is stated in para 2 of the petition that in connection with their business the petitioners took financial assistance from the respondent No. 2, State Bank of India, to the tune of Rs. 14,20,000/- on 14.2.1994. It is stated in para 3 that some disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 bank with regard to repayment and hence the State Bank of India filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad for recovery against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement before the Civil Judge but, thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and subsequently it ...
Nagar Palika Ahreora Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1371
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri K.G. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 Jai Singh.2. In this petition the award dated 15.2.1984 enclosed as Annexure-8 has been challenged whereby the respondent No. 2 Jai Singh was allowed to work upto 17.8.1983 and was allowed to receive salary from 1.12.1981 to 17.8.1983.3. It appears that Sri Raghunath the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a class-IV employee and in one of his service book his date of birth was entered as 18.1.1919 and in another one the date of birth was interpolated and was written as 18.1.1923. On the basis of physical examination of respondent report of dated 18.8.1979 by C.M.O. the estimated age of Sri Raghunath was assessed about 55 years, however treating the date of birth as 18.1.1919, the respondent was to retire on 18.1.1979 after completing 60 years of age. However, at the fag-end of career the respondent Raghunath submitted an application for correction of date of birt...
Cn 141 C.P. Kaushlesh Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2038
Vineet Saran, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba. The petitioners are Constables in Civil Police and by the impugned order they have been transferred to the Armed Police for a period of six months.2. Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has urged that constables of the Civil Police can be transferred to the Armed Police by the Superintendent of Policy only under Regulation 525 of the U.P. Police Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). It has been contended that since the conditions of the said regulation are not fulfilled in the present case, the petitioners could not have been transferred.3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that transfer of the constables from the Civil Police to the Armed Police can be made by the Superintendent of Police as per the requirement which may be assessed by the Superintendent of Police of the district and ...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR506]; (2003)3UPLBEC1963
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By mans of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-employers have challenged the award dated 9th June, 1995 of Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi passed in Adjudication Case No. 304 of 1988, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. The following dispute was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedyky pUnz iq= gfjnkl] in Vd pkkyd@iEi vkijsVj dhlsok;sa fnukad 30&4&80 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjfyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU;fdl fooj.k lfgr ** 2. The Labour Court issued notices to the workman as well as the employers. Both the parties have exchanged their pleadings filed documentary as well as oral evidence. In brief the case set up by the workman was that he was appointed in February, 1978 as Beldar and later on he was asked to perform the duties of Truck Driver and ultimately as Pump Operator. That th...
Harpal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC1977
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner who according to the assertions made in the writ petition, was appointed as Technical Assistant/Extension Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1400/-by the order dated 25.1.1980 with the respondent No. 2, Kaili Kisan Sewa Sahkari SamitiLtd., Block-Kharkhaunda, District-Meerut which is a primary agricultural credit cooperative Society registered under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner was suspended by the order of Managing Director of the said Society by the order dated 16.6.1992. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and he was asked to submit a reply to the same, petitioner states that he has submitted reply on 8.11.1993. The petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 21.11.1994 by the Managing Director of the Society. It has been stated in the order that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet but he has not submitted any explanation to the said charge-sheet. It was also stated that the peti...
L.S. Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (i) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2306
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman has challenged the award dated 16th August, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 511 of 1994. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh ,y- ,l- 'kekZ] iq= Jh gj izlkn 'kekZ] LVsuksxzkQj dks fnukad 13-2-75 ls lsokls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdlfooj.k lfgr **2. The Labour Court issued notice to the parties and allowed the parties to exchange their pleadings and lead evidence. On the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court framed following seven additional issues apart from reference made to it:(1) Whether the reference is illegal?(2) Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter?(3) Whether the transfer order dated 11.1.1975 is binding on ...
Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway and anr. Vs. Central Gove ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2310
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The employer-petitioners aggrieved by the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur dated 17th July, 1997 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 97 of 1993, Annexure '4' to the writ petition, has approached this Court by means of this writ petition questioning the legality of the award, referred to above. 2. The following dispute was referred to the respondent No. I/Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication :'Whether the action of the management in declaring Shri Subhjivan Lal S/o Sri Kishori Lal, Fireman Grade 'B', as permanently unfit as Fireman but fit in a one and below with glasses on 12.6.1984, is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?'3. From the perusal of the aforesaid reference, it appears that there appears to be typing mistake. So far as reference states whether the action of the management in declaring Shri Subhjivan Lal S/o Sri Kishori Lal, Fireman Grade (B' as permanently unfit as ...
Deewan Singh S/O Late Sri B.R. Singh, Incharge, Government Agriculture ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2206
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 3.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-l to the writ petition.3. The petitioner, who is a class-III employee, was placed under suspension by Sri Santosh Kumar Khare, who was holding the charge of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Deputy Director of Agriculture. At the relevant time, when the impugned order dated 3.11.2000 was passed , Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was performing the functions of the Deputy Director of Agriculture as stop gap arrangement. It is contended that since Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was not vested with the power of Deputy Director of Agriculture, he was not authorized to suspend the petitioner.4. The petitioner relies upon 1998 UPLBEC 1433 Suresh Chandra Maheshwari v. State of U.P.and Ors. and : (1997)11SCC610 Chairman and Managing Director, ...
Shailendra Nath Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2893; (2003)2UPLBEC1681
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 15.1.2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. The respondent No. 3 British India Corporation Limited (B.I.C.) was an associate of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. The Chairman of B.I.C. was also Chairman of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited in 1980. Thereafter, he was transferred to several places. The house in question, which belongs to B.I.C. was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1997, as has been stated in para 7 of the writ petition, being House No. 14/104. This was allotted free of cost to the petitioner, who was the General Manager of the Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited at that time. It was provided in his capacity as an officer of the company. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »