Allahabad Court March 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.
Vimla Singh (Smt.) Vs. Chief Engineer (East Zone) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC2092
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Executive Engineer, RES (respondent No. 2) to regularize her services on the post of Assistant Clerk in the office of Arth Avam Sankhya Adhikari, Ballia with all service benefits of a regular employee.3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed on 1.10.1992 on daily wages as an Assistant Clerk on Twenty Point Programme under Arth Avam Sankhya Adhikari, Ballia but after working for about 11 years continuously her services are yet to be regularized despite several representations made by her in this regard.4. From Annexure 1 to the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was working on honorarium on the daily wages rate under the Twenty Point Programme. She is neither an employee of the State Government nor she is holder of any civil post but is working under a scheme/project. Admittedly she is not paid wages by the State ...
Ambika Prasad Srivastava Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3425; (2005)ILLJ818All
Pradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhra, JJ.1. Pradeep Kant and K. S. Rakhra, JJ.- Counter-affidavit filed today be placed on record.2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the State.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the averments made in the counter- affidavit, he does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit. We have, therefore, proceeded to decide the matter on merit.4. Aggrieved by an order of dismissal from service dated 23.1.1992, the petitioner, who was Secretary in the Nagar Palika Centralised Service, filed a claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal. Apart from other pleas, it was the case of the petitioner that after submission of reply to the charge- sheet, he was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings nor any date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer intimating the same. The other ground of attack was that the petitioner was not supplied ...
Kaloo Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1637
M. Katju, J.1. This bunch of writ petitions listed today is being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is challenging the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. That notification states that the land in question is being acquired for Planned Industrial Development for Greater NOIDA.4. In a series of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court it has been held that acquisition for planned industrial development is for a public purpose vide Ajay Krishna Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 721. In the notification it is mentioned that as there is urgency, hence Section 5A is being dispensed with. In view of this recital this Court cannot interfere vide Bal Krishan Gulati v. State of U.P. and Ors.. 1991 AWC 1210 ; Garg Farms and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1989 AWC 1137. In Kunwar Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. an...
Ravi NaraIn Malviya and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1633
A.K. Yog and V.C. Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the case.2. Facts of the case, required for the adjudication of the issues raised in this petition are not in dispute and briefly stated as follows :3. The petitioners are admittedly recorded tenure holders/owners of Khasra Plot No. 790 situate in Mauza Puresurdas. Pargana Jhunsi, district Allahabad measuring 7752 sq. yards (2 bighas 17 biswas). Petitioners entered into an agreement to sell the land in question on May 18, 1983 with Prayag Upniveshan Avas Evam Nlrman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Balrampur House, Allahabad, for short called 'the Society'. It is also not in dispute that sale-deed, on the basts of said agreement was not executed, and the said deed was impounded under Indian Stamp Act, the Society failed to get the sale deed executed and the petitioners finally gave notice dated March 4, 1991, revoked the agreement to sell in favour of the Society.4. In para 6 of the writ petition it is s...
Vijay Maheshwari Vs. Parvez and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC40; 2005ACJ1479; 2004(2)AWC1629
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner has approached the Court for the relief claimed in the instant petition founded on the grievances that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Court No. 17) Meerut by means of its order dated 4.2.2004, rejected the condonation application and also the restoration application filed against dismissal of Motor Accident Claims Case No. 37 of 2002 which came to be dismissed for default of the petitioner as also the opposite parties.2. A brief resume of necessary facts is that the aforestated claim petition was instituted by the petitioner claiming compensation due to injuries suffered during the accident which occurred on 7.9.2002 resulting in fracture of both the legs of the petitioner besides numerous injuries all over his body. After the claim petition had been instituted, 14.2.2003 was fixed for evidence by the Claims Tribunal. According to the petitioner, since certified copies of papers had not been supplied, counsel for the petitione...
Jhansi Division Jal Sansthan Karmchari Union Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1849
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondent not to give effect to the order/seniority list dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure-6) and to give an option to the members of the petitioner-union to opt for the new Rules or to continue under the old Rules.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is a registered trade union of engineering staff of engineering cadre of Jai Sansthan, Jhansi, i.e., Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and General Managers. The services of the members of the petitioner union are governed and regulated by the provisions of the U. P. Patika (Centralised ) Services Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the 'Rules, 1966'). Rules 20 and 21 thereof provided for promotion and appointment to the centralised services. Rule 20 thereof provided for filling up the vacancies by promotion on the basis of inter se seniority subject to the rejection of unfit in consultation with the U. ...
Sunder Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1868; [2004(102)FLR181]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff was appointed as a rakshak in the Railways vide appointment letter dated 18,3.1966 issued by the Assistant Security Officer. The plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of which an enquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report found that the plaintiff was guilty of the charges framed against him. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Assistant Security Officer passed an order dated 12.9.1978, removing the plaintiff from the service. The plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The plaintiff thereafter, filed a suit for a declaration praying that the order of removal dated 12.9.1978 is Illegal, inoperative and void and was hit by Article 311(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff also prayed that he should be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The defendant in their written statement contended that the enquiry was held after following the pri...
Keshav Deo Sharma and anr. Vs. Secretary, Sri Nand Raiji Maharaj, Nand ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1936
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Order of District Judge Mathura passed under Section 92, C.P.C. has been taken in challenge in this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sri Keshav Deo Sharma who is elected President of the Temple known as Sri Nand Rai Ji Maharaj, Nand Kila, Gokul Mandir Samiti, Gokul District Mathura. The dispute in the instant petition revolves round 'resignations' submitted by 7 elected members in the election held on 17.5.2002.2. The affairs of the Temple known as Sri Nand Rai Ji Maharaj Nand Kila Gokul Mandir Samiti, Gokul District Mathura and five other temples dovetailed to it are managed by the Committee under the scheme prepared under Section 92, C.P.C. In accordance with it, election was held on 17.5.2002 in which 15 member were declared elected. It would transpire from the record that subsequently, 7 members so elected tendered their resignation on 21.5.2002 to the District Judge Mathura inasmuch as by that time, Pres...
Agra Development Authority Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2195
M. Katju, J.1. This bunch of First Appeals reveals a scandalous state of affairs which is prevailing in the State of U.P. regarding compensation being paid for land acquisition.2. In First Appeal No. 981 of 2002 the land in question belonged to Bhoop Singh and others who sold their right in the land after notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of a society respondent No. 3 (a) to the petition, represented by its Secretary respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 18,69,904 by 13 different sale deeds executed on 6.6.1991 and 7.8.1991.3. The S.L.A.O. gave his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 8.11.199,1 awarding Rs. 19,12,366.70 paise which was received by the respondent No. 3 (a). Thereafter, the society filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and during the pendency of the reference application, the society transferred all its rights in respect of the property and the litigation in favour of respondent No...
Anshuman Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All260
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 8-6-1998 in respect of electricity dues (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner alleged that the agreement for supply of electricity was between the company M/s. Bheem Cement Co. Ltd. and the U.P. State Electricity Board, and hence the dues cannot be recovered against the petitioner.4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 and in para 4 it has been stated that the agreement (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was signed by the U.P. State Electricity Board on the one part, and by two persons namely (the petitioner) and (M/s. Bheem Cement Ltd. through its Managing Director Sri Anshuman Singh, the petitioner on the other part. Both these persons have been referred to in the agreement as the consumer. Hence the assertion that the petitioner signed the agreement only as director of the company and not in h...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »