Allahabad Court April 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.
Ved Pal and ors. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2519
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 17.10.2002, passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, by which the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were set aside and the area of plots comprising in Khata No. 301 were directed to be recorded on the basis of area recorded in basic year khatauni.2. The facts bearing on the controversy are that plots comprising in Gata No. 2069, area 1 bigha 11 biswa, 2130 area 1 bigha 13 biswa, 2131, 11 biswa, 2133, one bigha one biswa, 2134, 19 biswa, 2193, 11 biswa, 2195, 1 bigha 7 biswa, 2197, 3 bigha 1 biswa, 2203 1 bigha 9 biswa and 2204 1 bigha 9 biswa were recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioners. The entries in relation to area of the aforestated plots were altered on the basis of survey ordered by the Consolidation Officer pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and following entries in relation to ...
Sudhakar Singh Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2672
Vineet Saran, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. to provide the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 to the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1986 and pay him the arrears of the difference in salary. A further prayer has been made for a direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Liaison Officer.2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that in the year 1973, the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Chemist in the Amroha Sugar Mills of the respondent U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Admittedly by the order dated 30.5.1985 passed by the General Manager of the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., the petitioner was designated as Liaison Assistant in the same pay scale and was attached to the General Section to look after the liaison and public relation work of the factory as well as project work. Subsequently, on 3.12.1987, the respondent-Co...
Nirmala Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All358
ORDERDevi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan and Shri D. C. Mukherjee learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Mohd. Afzal holding brief of Shri Z. Zilani on behalf of defendants / respondents.Both the appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the first appellate Court hence with the consent of the parties decided by the present judgment,2. Shri Vijay Bahadur and Smt. Nirmala Devi had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents relating to the chabootara and open space situated adjacent to their house. According to plaintiff/appellant, they have purchased a house by registered sale deed dated 1st June 1957 from its owner Nishar Khan. A copy of the sale deed is on record as Exhibit No. 1. Shri Nishar Khan had purchased house from its owner Shri Masuq Khan by registered sale deed dated 17th July 1987 filed as Exhibit No. 3 in the trial Court. The land and house situated on plot No. 6427, is a big plot existing in joint possession of ...
Parasu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3422
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.7.2003, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Gautam Buddh Nagar gave an award Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20.9.2003 but the petitioner filed an application Under Section 18 of the Act only on 21.1.1997. That application has been dismissed as time barred by the impugned order.4. The limitation for filing an application Under Section 18 has been mentioned in the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act which states :'Provided that every such application shall be made :(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award.(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector Under Sectio...
Vijai Kumar Vs. Mukund Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3423
ORDERK.S. Rakhra, J.1. This revision Under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Varanasi in S.C.C. No. 21 of 1999, Mukund Das v. Vijai Kumar, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the revisionist and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. has been decreed.2. Heard Dr, R. G. Padia learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party. Perused the record.3. The opposite party landlord brought a suit with the allegation that about 25 years ago, he had let out an open piece of land to the revisionist for keeping empty drums, trolleys, etc. on this land on payment of rent as mentioned in the plaint. Later on, he also permitted the defendant tenant to raise a temporary tin-shed kothari without doors on the lease land. This construction was raised with the understanding that it will be removed at the costs of the ten...
Hari Om Singh Tomar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2465
ORDERM. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have passed their M.Phil degree prior to 31.12.2002. However, there is no dispute that they have not passed theNational Eligibility Test (N.E.T.) nor have they a doctorate degree.3. The petitioner applied for appointment as lecturer in mathematics against the advertisement No. 32 as mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 to the writ petition.4. It is alleged in para 15 of the petition that a notification dated 31.7.2002 has been issued by the University Grants Commission which declares the candidates who have submitted their Ph.D. degree on or before 31.12.2002 as eligible, and exempts them from appearing in the N.E.T. Examination. In case such candidates fail to obtain Ph.D. degree, they shall have to pass the N.E.T. examination.5. The short submission of Sri Ashok Khare, senior counsel for the petitioner, is that the first amendment Regulation, 2002 has wrongly granted exemption from N.E.T. to on...
Sadgi Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2510
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to de-notify the land in question which was notified under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 31.10.2000 under Section 4/17 of the Land Acquisition Act and the notification dated 5.10.2002, issued under Section 6 and also the impugned order dated 10.3.2003, passed by the respondent No. 1 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the impugned notification.2. We are of the opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.3. It may be noted that the notification under Section 4/17 copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition was issued on 31.10.2000, whereas the present writ petition has been filed in April, 2004. Thus, the challe...
Ashutosh Agrawal Vs. Lala Ramanuj Dayal Vaishya Bal Sadan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2653
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Both the counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter may be heard on merits, as it relates to the pure question of law. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to invite any counter-affidavit.2. The sole argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the amended provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order VIII, Rule 1 by which the proviso has been added by the Act of 1999, which says that no time for filing the written statement shall be granted after the Court is adjourned beyond 90 days in terms of the above Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced below :'Order VIII. Rule 1 . Written statement.--The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him. present a written statement of his defence : Provided that where the ...
Swastik Pharmaceuticals and anr. Vs. Joint Regional Director U.P. Regi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3106; [2004(102)FLR862]; (2004)IIILLJ951All
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.2. The petitioners aggrieved by an order passed by the Joint Regional Director dated 7th April, 1982, under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act'), with regard to the damages for delayed payment of amount of contribution under the scheme approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the question of grant of delayed payment is concerned, it has not been disputed. Now the only question is as submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are not liable to pay the damages on the delayed payment of contribution.3. I have gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition. The provision of Section 85B of the Act. read with Regulations Employees' State Insurance (Gen.) Regulations, 1950, Regulation 31C, which is relevant, is produced below :'85B...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3341; [2004(102)FLR1143]
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Miss Bharati Sapru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Shukla learned standing counsel for the State-respondent. Nobody is present on behalf of the contesting respondent even in the revised reading of the cause list.2. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, Meerut dated 12th April, 1989 in a pending adjudication case. This petition is an example of how a powerful employer can stall the proceedings of an industrial dispute pending before the labour court for more than 18 years with the help of legal technicalities and niceties.3. The petitioner is a Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and owns various units located in different parts of the country.4. The services of the workman, respondent No. 2, were terminated on 11th September, 1985. Against the said action of the respondent No. 2, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the said di...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »