Allahabad Court January 2004 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.
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC736
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav and Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, for petitioners and Sri Ranjeet Saxena, for respondents.2. Petitioner (Form number) have filed this writ petition against an order by which the U.P. Electricity Services Commission has rejected their claims as retrenched Class IV Employees of the U.P. State Electricity Board, for absorption by way of direct recruitment as Class IV Employee in U.P. Power Corporation, under a special drive to fill up 236 vacancies of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and 97 vacancies for Other Backward Classes.3. Earlier the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 12620 of 2001. It was decided on 3.4.2001, directing the respondents to decide their representations. The decision was delay. Consequently the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 1930 of 2001, in which notices were issued on 8.7.2002, to opposite party No. 4 to show cause as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the order passed by this Court. In the ...
Harihar Prasad Kushwaha Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC934
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Amar Saran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J., in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6314 of 2001, Harihar Prasad Kushwaha v. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow and Ors. and also in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35136 of 2000, Harihar Prasad Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Ors.2. Before we consider the case, on merits, we however, keep on record that Dr. Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the does not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the appeal against the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions. Accordingly, we do not want to go into the question as to whether a single appeal preferred against the judgment and order, disposing of two writ petitions lies or not.3. In Writ Petition No. 35136 of 2000, the appellant-writ petitioner had sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service...
Smt. Mani Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC132
R.K. Dash, J.1. In the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the complaint case No. 2122 of 1998, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad.2. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred as 'the complaint') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short 'the Act') alleging that me petitioner and one Ram Chandra Sharma being the partners of Pacific Exims owed him a sum of rupees six lakhs. They did not discharge their liability and after repeated demand, issued two cheques; one for rupees 75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) and another for rupees 35,000/- (thirty-five thousand) on 15.8.1996. He deposited these two cheques in the Bareilly Corporation Bank, Amroha Gate, Moradabad, but those were dishonoured since the drawers had no sufficient amount in their account. ...
Sonu Alias Ajai Vikram Upadhyay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2366
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu Sonu alias Ajai Vikram Upadhayay has impugned the order dated 31-5-2003, passed by Mr. Ram Kumar, District Magistrate, Sultanpur (opposite party No. 3) detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention, order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-5-2003, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 31-5-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the 3rd opposite party (District Magistrate, Sultanpur) to issue the impugned detention order against him, are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2). A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the Impugned detention order Is founded on a solitary C.R. namely, C.R. No. 163 of 2003, under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 7; ...
Rasheed Ahmad Vs. Smt. Rase Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC258
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure No. 10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut on the applications (Paper No. 11C and Paper No. 13C2) filed in Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002.2. The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as 'the disputed shop'.3. From the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondents filed a Release Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. The said Release Application was registered as P.A. Case No. 72 of 1998. Copy of the said Release Application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.4. It furthe...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Saraya Distillery
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC632(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated June 4, 1992 relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. Dealer-opposite party was carrying on the business of country liquor. Dealer claimed that during the year under consideration, dealer had not sold Indian-made foreign liquor and had only sold country liquor. Assessing authority however, rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover of Indian-made foreign liquor at Rs. 1 lakh. Dealer filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed in part. First appellate authority had accepted the books of account and disclosed turnover. However, during the course of hearing of appeal, issued notice to the dealer to show cause why turnover of rectified spirit and denatured spirit are not liable to tax. After reply from the dealer, plea was accepted that being alcohol they were not liable to tax. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) further held that during the year under consideration dealer ha...
Vishwanath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC351
1. Yatindra Singh, J 1. The main question in this writ petition is, whether the compensation statement prepared under Chapter IX-A (Conferment of Sirdari Rights on Adhivasi) under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act) can be challenged in separate proceedings, namely, the suit as in this case.THE FACTS2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (the contesting respondents) filed a suit on 11.10.1955 against the petitioner under Section 202 of the Act for his ejectment. The allegations in substance are that :. The property in dispute came in the share of their father Gopal Das in private partition and he was a person falling in one or more classes of Section 157 of the Act (that is a disabled person). . The property in dispute was let out to the petitioner in 1353 F. and on that date the petitioners were minors consequently disabled persons. . After abolition of Zamindari, the petitioner became asami of the property in dispute under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. . The petitioner...
Hari Om Bhatia and ors. Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC813
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. (in short 'P.I.C.U.P.') (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition), inter alia, praying that the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. S. R. Singh and Hon. S. P. Mehrotra, JJ. in the aforesaid writ petition (namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002) be modified and the writ petition be dismissed.2. The said order dated July 19, 2002, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15774 of 2002 is quoted below :'In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta and Anr. v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and Ors., following questions came up for consideration before this Bench : 'First, whether the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the State Act, 1972) has been rendered void and inoperative, after the insertion of Section 32G in the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ...
Mohi UddIn Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1060
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The only question involved in this writ petition is, 'whether any rights are conferred on Khudkast holder under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Z. A. Act) Act, whose land was submerged in a river on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting.'The Facts 2. The petitioners filed a suit on 15.5.1965 for declaration that they are bhumidhar of the plots mentioned in list A of the plaint. List A included four plots namely plot No. 18/13/1, 8/24, 8/25 and 8/39. There is a list B also. It includes 67 plots. However, it is not clear as to why these plots were mentioned as no relief is claimed in respect of plots of list B. In this writ petition, I am also concerned with plots of list 'A' only. In substance the plaint allegations are that:* The petitioners were Khudkast holder of the plots in list 'A'.* The plots submerged in the river Ganges sometime after 1356 F and re-emerged in 1372 F.* The petitioners are deemed to be Khudkast holde...
Chhetrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1064; (2004)2UPLBEC1332
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the equity relief by a person who does not know means. He has been a Judicial Officer, retired from the post of Additional District Judge, Moradabad on 31st July, 1998.2. As per the provisions contained in the Fundamental Rules, a retired Government servant, after the retirement, is entitled to retain the accommodation for a period of one month on usual rent and, subsequently for a period of three months on standard rent. As four months' period expired on 30th November, 1998, petitioner did not vacate the accommodation allotted to him as an Additional District Judge, Moradabad. He was appointed Chairman of the District Consumer Forum, Moradabad in November, 1998. Thus, he moved an application before the District Judge, Moradabad that he should be permitted to retain the said accommodation. His application was referred to the High Court, however, the Court rejected the said application vide letter dated 30th April, 1999 and pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »