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.
Smt. Krishna Kumari Talwar Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC187; [2004]54SCL131(All)
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Shri Ashit Kumar Chaturvedi on behalf of petitioner and Shri V.L. Verma on behalf of respondent No. 6.Brief facts of the case is that, respondents Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch Officer at GT Road, District Ghaziabad, U.P. had offered to grant of cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs. 15 lakhs to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner Smt. Krishna Kumari Talwar stood as guarantor along with others. The petitioner had also executed an equitable mortgaged of the property in question in favour of respondents bank. The credit limit was enhanced up to Rs. 20 lakh, at later stage. Several other properties were also hypothecated to the bank in pursuance of enhanced cash credit limit. Since the defendant failed to make the repayment of loan, the respondent bank had sent the demand notice for payment of Rs. 41,23,793.33. In the event of default of payment the civil suit was filed, which was later on transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (respondent No....
Ram Asray Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC2070
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2003, by which the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant against the order of termina-tion of his services dated 22.11.2000 has been dismissed.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant has been appointed as the Driver by the learned District Judge, Bijnor on Ad hoc basis vide appointment letter dated 1.11.1991. A post of Jeep Driver was created vide order dated 1st May, 1999 and appellant was appointed on temporary basis. His services stood terminated vide order dated 22.11.2000 by the learned District Judge, Bijnor under Rule 3 of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1975) by giving one month's notice. Petitioner-appellant challenged the validity thereof. However, the petition stood dismissed. Hence this appeal.3. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Co...
Navita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC310
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 23.12.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1997, Brij Bahadur Sharma v. Navita Sarma, by which the order passed by 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, in Case No. 7/11 of 1997 in favour of Navita Sharma under Section 125 Cr.P.C was set aside on the ground that the Court of Muzaffar Nagar has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case because Navita Sharma was living with her father-in-law, Shiv Sharma, in District Ghaziabad. The Court below held that it is the Court of Ghaziabad, which will decide the case of maintenance of Navita Sharma against her husband.2. After the revision was filed by Navita Sharma notice was served on Brij Bahadur Sharma, opposite party No. 2, but none appeared for him at the time of argument, hence the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. were heard and judgment is ...
In Re: Jaypee Cement Limited; in Re: Jaiprakash Industries Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas854(All); (2004)2CompLJ105(All)
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. Company Petition No. 26 of 2003 has been filed jointly by the transferee company, namely, Jaypee Cement Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as JPC for short) and the transferor company, namely, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as JPI for short) seeking sanction of the Court to a scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of the two companies by which JPI is to merge into JPC.2. JPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPI, that is to say, that 100% paid up shares of JPC are held by JPI. Thus, the holding company is proposed to be merged into the subsidiary company. JPI has a paid up share capital of Rs. 176,21,69,810 consisting of 17,62,16,981 fully paid up equity shares of Ks. TO each. JPC has a paid up share capital of Rs. 418,00,00,000 comprising 41,80,00,000 fully paid up equity shares of Rs. 10 each.3. Company Petition No. 25 of 2003 seeks confirmation by the Court to the reduction of the paid up share capital of JPC from Rs. 418,00,00,000 comprising 41,8...
Ram Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1627; (2004)2UPLBEC1866
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.1. Gandhi Adarsh Vldyalaya Inter College, Barhni, District Siddharthanagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution') is a duly recognised 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, 1971 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. Siddharthanagar 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. Howev...
Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1870
ORDERM. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. None appears to press this petition.2. Notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 2.2.1998 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.3.1999. Possession of the land in dispute was taken on 4.8.1999. Before that 80% of the estimated compensation was deposited under Section 17(3A) of the Act. The acquisition is for the purposes of housing colony. It has been held in Khacheru Singh v. Development Authority, Moradabad and Ors., 1989 AWC 1376 and State of U. P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 2025. etc. that where the land is being acquired for housing, it is a public purpose and there is urgency.3. In Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal and Ors., 2003 (1) AWC 73 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 22 : (2002) 7 SCC 712, it has been held that merely because of some delay, the Notification cannot be set aside. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Mahar...
U.P. Awas and Vikas Parishad Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1870b
Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Admittedly the land which has been acquired is of 12.89 acres which is equal to 6,23,870 square yards. The exemplar relied upon by the court below being paper No. 90 Ga is of 30 square yards. Hence in view of the judgment dated 25.2.2004 of this Court in First Appeal No. 522 of 1993, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Khushi Ram, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the court below is set aside.3. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri. S. O. Tumari, AIR 1995 SC 840 (vide para 22), the Supreme Court held that the burden is on the claimant to show that the S.L.A.O. did not award the proper compensation or that the claimant was entitled to higher compensation. In the present case, the claimants (respondents) have not been able to show that the S.L.A.O. did not award the proper compensation. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was affirmed. We are also ...
Naunihal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2211
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the partial.2. In case after case, which is coining up before us, we find that a citizen's land has been acquired or simply taken over without paying him compensation. This is highly improper, and in fact violative of Article 300A of the Constitution.3. In the present case the petitioner is a farmer whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was given on 24.2.2002, but it is alleged that as yet the compensation has not been paid vide para 10 of the petition.4. The compensation awarded is Rs. 36,93,260.85 paise calculated upto August, 2002. Nothing has been paid to the petitioner as yet although land acquisition proceedings started in 1999. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that possession was illegally taken about 22 years ago.5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Engineer on behalf of the respondents it is stated in para 6 that in pursuance of the award dated 24.1.2001 an amount of Rs. 5,50,000 ...
Uttar Pradesh Ganna Sodh Parishad Genda Singh Ganna Evam Anushandhan S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR827]; (2004)2UPLBEC1731
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned award dated 11.8.1998 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur. The Labour Court by the award held that the petitioner is an industry and directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full salary/back wages and consequential benefits.3. Sri Lalit Kumar Singh (respondent No. 2) was engaged in the office of the petitioner as Office Clerk w.e.f. 24.1.1989 to 1.9.1990 purely on temporary basis on consolidated wages of Rs. 850/- p.m. in pursuance of an order of the Adviser & Director dated 24.1.1989. His services were terminated vide order dated 1.1.1990. On failure of conciliation proceedings the State Government referred the dispute regarding termination of the services of the respondent-workman to the Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 349 of 1991.4. The main submission o...
Ram Bahadur Vs. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1755
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner alleges to have appeared in B.A. Part I Correspondence Course Examination for the year 1998. He failed in the subject of Medieval History. However, he was permitted to appear in back paper examination of B.A. Part I and was admitted in B.A. Part II Course. He qualified his B.A. Part II Examination in 1999. The result of the back paper examination was declared in February, 2000 in which the petitioner failed. Learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that as per the rules of the University only one chance is given to a student to appear in back paper examination. This rule appears to be arbitrary. Once the University permits a student to appear in B.A. Part I back paper examination and admits the student in B.A. Part II Course who appears in B.A. Part II examination and is declared successful but fails in back paper examination of B.A. Part I, it results in loss of minimum two to three years ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »