Allahabad Court May 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.
Distilleries and Chemical Mazdoor Union Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ399All
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard Shri V.K. Barman learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Vivek Ratan learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner has prayed that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to realize any contribution under the E.S.I. Act from the workmen of respondent No. 3. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the submission of the petitioner. The E.S.I. Act clearly applies to the establishment of respondent No. 3. As has been stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, no application for exemption from the Act has been filed by any body nor any exemption has been granted. As regards the plea that there is discrimination between the employees of respondent No. 3 and employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and K.E.S.A., Kanpur, we are of the opinion, there is no merit in this submission also. Each establishment has its own unique problems and circumstances. Moreover, re...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1900
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, advocate for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Shanker Ray, senior advocate for respondent No. 4, Sri A.K. Mishra, advocate for respondent No. 3 and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. The writ petition, as originally filed, contains following relief :(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the Government order on the basis of which the respondents are trying to transfer the legally acquired property of the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 3 and thereafter to quash the said order ;(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide records relating to the alleged transfer of the property in favour of respondent No. 3 ;(iii) ...
Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2059
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Upadhyay and Sri Devendra Kumar Arora, advocates for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior advocate assisted by learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 26.9.2003 appointing Single Member Commission of Inquiry. Another prayer which was subsequently added is to quash the decision of the State Government as contained in letter dated 25.1.2004 Annexure-16 to the Writ petition issued by Sri Ravinder Singh. Secretary, Handloom and Environment, U.P. Government by which Shri Vijay Shanker Mathur was communicated about his appointment for submitting a report regarding prima facie irregularities found with regard to NOIDA, GREATER NOIDA, Taj Express Way project. It has further been prayed that entire proceedings and report of the Inquiry Commission be quashed.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding t...
Harbansh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2331
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification No. A-2/E-1/2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 published in Employment News 22-28, November, 2003 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition in so far as it relates to the holding of the Preliminary and Main Examination for recruitment to the post of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) in accordance with the syllabus mentioned, in Schedule II of the said advertisement. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ, order or direction declaring Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2003 so far it relates to enhancement of 50 mark in the written paper of the general knowledge and enhancement of 100 marks in language paper.2. We are afraid, we cannot issue any such direction as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not for this Court to prescribe or alter the syllabus of the examination or to interfere in enhancement of the marks in various p...
Daya Shanker Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2356
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord and owner of the premises No. 67 of 310, Kanchhiyana Mohal, Kanpur and is residing on the first floor with his family. The accommodation in occupation of the petitioner consists of two rooms, which are interconnected, a covered Verandah, latrine and bathroom. The family of the petitioner consists of self, wife, 4 sons, daughter-in-law, and an unmarried daughter. On the second floor, there is one room which, was in the occupancy of a tenant Sri Bhal Chand. He fell in arrears of rent and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of rent and for ejectment against the said tenant and for possession. This suit was decreed on 21.1.1978 and the petitioner was delivered possession pursuant to the execution of the decree. The petitioner as, a law abiding citizen, intimated the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 1.2.1978 and also filed an application for the release of the room vacated by the tenant under Section 1...
Triloki Chandra Lal (T.C. Lal) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2345
ORDERM. Katju and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1.This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.4.2004.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.3. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and find no infirmity in the same.4. Admittedly according to petitioner's High School certificate and Service Book record he was to retire on 31.1.1997 on completing the age of 60 years, but it appears that he continued to work till 9.10.1998 and was paid salary till June, 1998. We fail to understand how he continued to work after 31.1.1997 which was his date of retirement. Hence, the salary, arrears and allowances after 31.3.1997 must be recovered from his retiral benefits.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is nothing to show that the appellant continued after 31.1.1997 by some manipulation. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission. Firstly, whether there was manipulation or not is really irr...
Panchoo Ram Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2358; (2004)3UPLBEC2186
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri B. P. Srivastava for petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. This writ petition was filed on 21.8.1990 against the order dated 31.7.1990 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad terminating the services of temporary Sweeper-cum-Chawkidar, The writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed on 21.8.1990 directing that the operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.3. The petitioner was appointed on 28.1.1989, as a temporary Sweeper-cum-Chawkidar. The order dated 31.7.1990 does, not give any reason for terminating petitioner's services. It is apparently an innocuous order stating that the Government does not require services of Panchoo Ram, temporary Sweeper-cum-Chawkidar, that his services shall be terminated with immediate effect, and he shall be paid one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. It appears to be passed under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Order, 1975.4. In the counter-affidav...
Jagannath and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3012; (2004)2UPLBEC1924
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioners, Ms. Nahood A. Moonis, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.2. This application being Civil Misc. Application No. 106120 of 2000, has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the substitution application as well as for setting aside the abatement. In Paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application, it has been stated that the deponent came to Allahabad on 16th November, 2000 when he was informed that the writ petition has been dismissed and his Counsel also instructed him to supply necessary information with regards to the legal heirs of respondent No. 3 who had since expired.3. It is thereafter stated that, the petitioners belong to rural area and were not informed about the substitution of legal heirs of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The...
Jagdish Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2804; (2004)3UPLBEC2460
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Challenge in the instant petition is focused on awards dated 28th July, 2000, 21.12.1987 and 21.12.1983 rendered by Additional District Cooperative Officer, Chunar, Mirzapur and consequent recovery citations dated 6.3.2002. The petition was heard on various dates and last hearing in the case was made on 10.5.2004 on which date the petition was allowed stipulating that reasons would follow.2. Brief facts as may bear upon the controversy involved in this petition may be recapitulated hereinafter. As the materials on record indicate, the petitioner who claims himself to be a marginal farmer, had obtained seeds of the value of Rs. 6.756.89 and Rs. 4,970.15 respectively from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Bat Bantara Madhupur Sonebhadra, as far back as in the year 1982 for his crops. Concededly, the petitioner could not repay the amount to the aforestated Samiti due to successive failure of crops thereafter. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequ...
MaIn Pal Singh Vs. Second Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3585
Arun Tandon, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Executing Court dated 3rd January, 1994 passed in three different Misc. Execution Cases No. 16/90, 17/90 and 18/90 as also against the order passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Revision No. 27/94, 28/94 and 29/94, dated 7.12.1994, whereby all the revisions have been clubbed and decided together.2. The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 50 of 1972 for specific performance of the agreement to sell, executed by Tara Chand in favour of the petitioner dated 25.8.1971. During the pendency of the said suit, Sri Tara Chand is alleged to have executed a sale deed of the same property in favour of Sri Dhyan Singh dated 13.12.1973. The plaintiff accordingly moved an amendment application along with an impleadment application in the said suit. The suit was finally decree by the trial court after allowing the amendment and impleadment applications on 11.8.1977. In the said suit Sri Dhyan ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »