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.
British India Corporation Ltd., Cawnpore Woollen Mills Branch Vs. Stat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2660; [2004(102)FLR863]
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri J.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Ms. Bharti Sapru, learned counsel for workman/respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner-employer by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the award of the Labour Court (III), U. P., Kanpur, dated 31st May, 1982, passed in Adjudication Case No. 101 of 1980, copy whereof is appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.3. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.'Kya sewajojkon dwara apne shramik Sukhdev (Putra Banke Singh) winder V. S. 8050 Rotating Shift Drawying and Spinning Vibhag ko dinank 23.8,1978 se karya se prithak/ vanchit kiya Jana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhantk hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya labh/anutosh (Relief) pane ka adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit?'4. The Labour Court after exchange of the pleadings,...
Gulab Chandra Vs. Lachhmi Chandra Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3157
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This second appeal was heard by this Court on 26th March, 2004 and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid second appeal.2. The judgment debtor filed an objection that the plaintiff-decree holder put his decree into execution, which has resulted into the proceeding, which has come up to this Court in the form of present second appeal. The decree having been passed for specific performance of the contract for sale and the decree holder deposited the consideration in the Court towards the execution. The Judgment debtor submitted in his objection that the decree is unexecutable because the amount deposited by the decree holder is not the full amount, which the decree holder should deposit. This objection is based on fact that the Judgment debtor is decree holder against the present decree holder in another suit. The part of...
Radhey Shyam and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3777
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.2. The brief facts of the case are that the prescribed authority vide its order dated 15.12.2003 declared 5.489 acre land belonging to the petitioners as surplus. The petitioners filed Appeal bearing No. 309 along with application for interim relief before the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. The Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda while admitting the appeal stayed the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 3 till 28.2.2004 vide order dated 23.12.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner's land. It is apprehended that the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 are going to allot the land of the petitioners to some one else.3. In view of the above, the authorities cannot take into consideration the orde...
Dr. Mohammad Tahir Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1406
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Disagreeing with a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 1 UPLBEC 402, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of the view expressed in the aforementioned cases.2. In the case of Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan (supra), this Court has held that Section 50(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), As inserted by the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act. 1987 (U.P. Act No. 19 of 1987) hereinafter referred to as (the Amendment Act 2), has made applicable the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur which was in force immediately before the establishment of the Purvanchal University, to the Purvanchal University (Which was established on 2nd October, 1987) and any amendments and modifications made in the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur subsequent to that date will not be applicable to the Purvanchal ...
Om Prakash Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3567
1. In the instant petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 5-10-2003, registered as case crime No. 153 of 2003, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ramsheel Sharma, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No. 4 and the learned AGA and also perused the impugned FIR.3. It appears that the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 4, who is a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste, alleging therein that the petitioners went to her house and brought her to police station and from there they took her to the house of one Rajesh Yadav where they forcibly committed rape on her and she was also threatened that if she opens her mouth her brother and father would be confined to jail forever and thus, the allegation prima facie discloses commiss...
Ved Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3573
M.C. Jain, J.1. Nine persons were put to trial in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1979 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. They were Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi, Siya Ram, Niranjan, Chhatrapal, Dal Chand, Rampal and Dharampal. The last two Rampal and Dharampal are real brothers being the sons of Punni. The appellants were tried for the double murder of Chet Ram and his brother Raghu Nath. The trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. Chhatrapal, Dalchand, Rampal and Dharampal were also convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The remaining five, namely, Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi Siva Ram and Niranjan were convicted for the offence of rioting under Section 148, I.P.C. and each sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the judgment dated 27th Feb. 1981 which is impugned in this ...
Hyper Chemicals and Cosmetics P. Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC177
1. The respondent-State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-bank") filed a civil suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 (appellants herein, hereinafter referred to as "appellants-defendants"), before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kanpur, for the recovery of Rs. 13,89,436 with interest and costs. The said civil suit was ultimately transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "DRT"). The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the impugned final order dated February 18, 2003, directing the issue of the recovery certificate for the above said amount with interest at 20 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till recovery. He also directed that the amount can be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks, if they exist, and the mortgaged property. He further directed that if there was any balance, that can be recovered from the other properties of the appellants-defendants.2. Aggrieved, the...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Shiv Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1808
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff was appointed on the post of 'SKR' in the Railways in the grade of Rs. 196-232. A trade test for the trade 'Bus Maintained' was conducted on 17.11.1978, in which the plaintiff was declared successful and by letter dated 1.12.1978, he was communicated that he had passed the trade test and was selected as a Bus Maintainer. By an order dated 11.12.1978, the plaintiff was appointed as a Bus Maintainer in the grade of Rs. 260-400 against a newly created post and a new token number was allotted to him. The plaintiff alleged that on account of his selection in the test trade for the trade of Bus Maintainer, he was promoted in the grade of Rs. 260-400 on a substantive post against a newly created post. The plaintiff further alleged that after his promotion his juniors were also promoted as Bus Maintainer. The plaintiff contended that after his promotion he had been working sincerely, diligently and honestly. However, his style of working was not appreciated b...
Mahendra Pal Singh Sodhi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2548
A.N. Varma, J.1. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, whereby his services have been terminated in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. The petitioner after having qualified for the written test, physical test and medical test, was declared successful for being appointed on the post of Constable in the Police Department. Accordingly pursuant to his letter of appointment which has been filed as Annexure-S.C.A.-1 along with the Supplementary Affidavit, he joined the Department on 15.5.1995 at Police Lines, Kanpur. Upon being so appointed the petitioner was required to undergo Junior Training Course (J.T.C.) of one month. After completion of the said training he was further requ...
Manjoor Ali and anr. Vs. Kishmat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All395
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The plaintiff appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession on the land in dispute as shown in the plaint map. It was alleged that the disputed land was the house of Mst. Malda, who had executed a sale deed dt. 16-5-1933 in respect of her one pai share in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and since then, the plaintiffs were in possession of the same. It was further alleged that the house collapsed about 10 years back. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were using the land for keeping and drying cowdung etc. and for other similar purposes. It was alleged that when the plaintiff started storing the bricks etc. for constructing a new house over the land in question, the defendants started interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and tried to take possession.2. The defendant 1st set contested the suit contending that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land in dispu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »