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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Phunoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1860
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff was working as a Khalasi in Bridge workshop in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. It is alleged that on 23.4.1975, he assaulted the bridge inspector while on duty. On the basis of the complaint filed by the bridge inspector a charge-sheet dated 21.5.1975 was served upon the plaintiff proposing to take action under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The said charge-sheet was not accompanied by any documents nor was accompanied by any list of witnesses. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet an enquiry was initiated in which the plaintiff participated and thereafter on the basis of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dated 19.12.1977. The plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit praying that the order of dismissal was void, as the same was contrary to the Rules, against Article 311 of the Constitution of India and was also violative of the...
Basudeo Lal Srivastava (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1871
Tarun Agarwala, J.1.The plaintiff filed a suit praying that the order dated 11.10.1982 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 14.7.1983 passed by the appellate authority censuring the plaintiff and fixing his date of birth as 31.10.1925 be declared illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed that a declaration be issued holding that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff was 10.7.1932 and that the plaintiff was entitled to work till the date of superannuation, i.e., 31.7.1992.2. The plaintiff alleged that he was appointed as a Daftari in Punjab National Bank in December, 1945. when he was only 13 years 5 months old. In the year 1953, the plaintiff, while in service passed the High School examination in which the date of birth was recorded as 10.7.1932. In the year 1965, the plaintiff realised that his date of birth recorded in the service register was incorrect and accordingly he made a representation t...
Uttar Pradesh Ministerial Collectorate Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR518]; (2004)2UPLBEC2080
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The petitioner claims to be a recognized association of Ministerial Employees, of Collectorate of U.P. and feels aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition which was filed seeking a relief requiring the respondents not to fill up the vacancies in the post of Naib Tehsildars to the extent of 10% of total strength from any other source except from the members of the Association. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to enforce the order of the State Government dated 26/31.12.1956 and make necessary provision in the Rules for the implementation of the said Government Order.3. It may be noticed that the Chief Secretary of Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued as Circular dated 26/31.12.1956 on the subject of reorganization of the staff of the Collectorate. At the very out set, in the aforesaid Circular it was provided that unless specif...
Dhanpat Rai Verma Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: [2004]268ITR215(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dated September 4, 1990, annexure 10 to the writ petition. This court ordinarily does, not interfere with show cause notices, vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [1995] 8 JT 331 (SC) and Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, AIR 2004 SC 1467, etc.3. Moreover even on the merits, we find no force in this petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was a partner in the firm, M/s. Shakti Traders and Engineers, Shamli, which was dissolved on July 15, 1981. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated that the impugned demand is for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessment year 1981-82 corresponds to the financial year April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981. Hence, the period of that assessment year is prior to the date of dissolution of the firm.4. As regards the assessment year 1982-83 this corresponds to the financialyear April 1, 1981, to March 31, ...
Subhash Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1150
A.K. Yog, J.1. Subhash Chandra, Angad Prasad, Abdul Quaiyum and Narendra Kumar Singh, four petitioners, have filed the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India praying for following reliefs :'(i) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to produce a copy of the decision of the selection committee holding the petitioners ineligible for consideration and to quash the same.(ii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith interview the petitioners for U.P. Higher Judicial Service in pursuance to the interview letters issued to them within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.(iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature quashing the entire proceedings of interview and to direct de novo interview proceedings to be conducted of all candidates including the petitioners and only thereafter to declare the final result.(iv) writ, order or direction in the nature...
R.K. Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1917
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer, order dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure-1) served upon the petitioner by fax on 3.3.2004, on various grounds including the ground that after issuance of the Model Code of Conduct, issued by the Election Commission of India dated 29.2.2004 (hereinafter called the 'Code'), the State Government was not competent to issue transfer order in respect of petitioner as he would be involved in the forthcoming election process, without prior clearance of the Election Commission even if the order has been issued prior to the issuance of the said Code on 28th February, 2004, for the reason that the Code provided that where the transfer order has been passed but has not been implemented by the said date of issuance, it would not be given effect to without seeking clearance of the Election Commission.2. Shri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he prays that the impugned order by which petiti...
Shah Mohammad Vs. Incharge District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC417
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. A short question involved in this case is that according to amendment done in the Code of Civil Procedure, the written statement should have been filed by the defendant petitioner within a statutory stipulated period. Since the petitioner had not filed the written statement within period provided under Order VIII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure i.e. the period of 90 days petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial Court as well as revisional Court on the ground that there is no provision for extention of time in the amended Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly petitioner has lost his right to file the written statement.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, AIR 2003 Delhi 280, Dr. Sukhdev Singh v. Amrit Pal Singh and Ors., the Delhi High Court while interpreting the relevant provision of the amended Code of Civil Procedure arrived to the conclusion that the d...
Ganga Ram and anr. Vs. Mahip NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC551; 2005ACJ1225
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This first appeal from order has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.2.1978 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ghazipur, U.P. (District Judge, Ghazipur).2. The brief facts are that there was an accident on the Ghazipur-Varanasi Road on 29.11.1974 wherein a small child of about 5 years of age was run over and died instantaneously. The driver of the truck, Nanhakoo sped away the truck and could be apprehended only on a long chase given by the family members of the deceased. An F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. The parents of the child preferred the claim petition for an award of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and due hearing of all the parties, found that it was not the truck driver, Nanhakoo, who was negligent but the deceased child was negligent due to which this accident had resulted. Accordingly, the court below having not found merit in the claim petition, dismissed the same and passed the impugned judgment....
Ram Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1266
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.1. Gandhi Adarsh Vidyalaya Inter College, Barhni, District Siddharthanagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution') is a duly recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The institution is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1991 is applicable to this institution. In this institution one Rama Shanker Mishra was promoted on account of resultant vacancy occurred on which the appellant was appointed under the provisions as contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The appointment of the appellant was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddhartha Nagar by communication dated 31st March, 1995 and since then the appellant was regularly performing and discharging his duties and was paid his salary under the Act. Howeve...
Shyam Karan Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1847
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed in 1981 as Stenographer in Collectorate, Azamgarh. He has been suspended on charges of getting a gun licence renewed by making farzi signature of the applicant. This petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of suspension issued by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, which is said to have been served on him on 20.2.2004. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not allotted the work of renewal of application for arms licence and this work was in fact being done by Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh against whom no action has been taken.3. There is no allegation that Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh has committed any misconduct, on the contrary the charges against the petitioner is that he had impersonated and signed the application putting his farzi signature as the applicant who had applied for renewal of the licence. It appears from the record that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »