Allahabad Court February 2005 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.
Laxmi Palace (Cinema) Through Its Partner Sri Mukund Lal Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR325]
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Subject matter of impugnment in the instant petition is the Award dated 3.6.1995 rendered by the Labour Court Varanasi pursuant to Reference No. 105 of 1992 made under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which Industrial Dispute referred was 'Whether the employers have wrongfully terminated the services of Employee Sri Lalji Pandey son of Sri Dev Nath Pandey, Booking Clerk with effect from 8.12.1990 and if so, what relief/compensation he is entitled to get?'2. It would appear from the record that the petitioner-employer entered appearance through his representative on 7.7.1992. on which date time was sought to file written statement on behalf of the petitioner employer. On 21.10.1994, time was again granted to the representative of the petitioner fixing 15.12.1994 and again upto 3.2.1995. Again, time was granted on 2.3.1995 fixing 28.4.1995. It would further appear that in the meantime representative of the petitioner reclused himself and as ...
Smt. Prema Devi W/O Rajendra Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge and K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1411
Krishna Murari, J. 1. These are two connected writ petitions arising out of proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') between the same parties.2. Heard S/Sri N.K.Saxena, R.R.Sheoharey and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respective parties in both the writ petitions3. One Khuman Singh (petitioner in writ petition No. 9714 of 1988) is the tenure holder against whom proceeding for determination of surplus land was initiated. Smt. Prema Devi (petitioner in writ petition No. 16412 of 1984) is transferee of certain plots belonging to Khuman Singh under sale deed dated 15.4.1972.4. The facts are that objection filed by Khuman Singh was rejected by the prescribed authority on 2.11.1974 against which he filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the prescribed authority. After remand Smt. Prema Devi also filed objection claiming herself to be the transferee of certain plots under sale deed dated 15.4.1972. The pres...
Shobh Nath Dubey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2610; 2005(2)ESC1027
Vineet Saran, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.2. The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, who was an employee of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited. The petitioner joined the service of the Bank in the year 1967. He passed High School Examination in the year 1981, while in service. His date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate as well as Class IX certificate issued by the school (which was prior to his joining the service) was 26.1.1947. Even in the service book maintained by the Bank, the date of birth of the petitioner had throughout been recorded as 26.1.1947. On 15.11.2003 the Managing Director of the Bank passed an order indicating the...
Khair Mohammad S/O Shir Niaz Mohammad and Nek Mohammad, S/O Uzair Moha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1750
Arun Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Madhyan and Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Archana Tyagi and Sri P.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioners, Khair Mohammad and Nek have filed first writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21012 of 2003 for the following reliefs: 'i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of) certiorari quashing the order dated. 29th August, 2002 passed by respondent no. 3. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect the orders dated 25.01.2003 and 29.08.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 & 3 respectively, iii. issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case. iv. Award cost of the Writ: petition to the petitioners.' 3. The facts relevant for th...
Kamla Pati Tripathi Vs. District Basic Education Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1986
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was given appointment by the opposite party No. 4 i.e. The Adhyaksh Shiksha Samlti Gram Panchayat, Naurani, Rampur, district Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 4.8.1999. In compliance of the order dated 4.8.1999, the petitioner had joined at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Fhidai Ganeshpur and started working. Since the petitioner was not paid his salary, he moved an application dated 31.12.1999 to the opposite party No. 4. Since the opposite party No. 4 did not take any steps on the aforesaid application, the petitioner moved an application dated 31.1.2000 before opposite party No. 1 i.e. District Basic Education Officer. On the aforesaid application, the opposite party No. 1 wrote a letter dated 21.2.2000 to the concerned School Head Master, indicating therein that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, which was received by the Head Master on 24.2.200...
Sarika Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ESC2378
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. In Vinod Kumar Rai v. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad, 20O2 (2) ESC 143 (All), a Division Bench of this Court held that the Full Court of the Allahabad High Court in its resolutions dated 17.3.1993 and 7.3.1998 while approving the draft Rules for making U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, had given consent for reservation in favour of physically disabled persons in recruitment to the judicial service, and thus there is 3% reservation in favour of physically disabled persons in accordance with U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Disabled, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993). The Division Bench further held that this reservation for physically disabled persons must be read harmoniously with Rule 20 of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, which provides that no person should be appointed as member of the service unless he be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)186
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court :RA No. 20/All/1989Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80P(2)(iv) in respect of gypsum section and seed section RA No. 30/All/1989Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80P(2)(iv) in respect of fertilizer and seed section 2. The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee is an apex co-operative society of Uttar Pradesh. Its members are the district level co-operative societies and the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The members o...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1151; 2005(3)ESC1897
Arun Tendon, J.1. Heard Sri S. N. Verma senior advocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Malviya, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri S. K. Saxena on behalf of respondent No. 3, and Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Petitioners, who are two in numbers, claim themselves to be the owners and in possession of land covered by Khasra Nos. 2946/.08, 2947/.41, 2948/84, 2949/,89, 2950/.14, 2951/.31, 2952.43, 2953/1.02, 2954/.82, 2955/.03, 2956/1.09, 2957/.16, 2960/.29, 2961/.46, 2962/.37, 2963/.46, 2964/.68 and 2965/.35, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It is further claimed that the name of the petitioners are also recorded in the relevant revenue records in respect of the aforesaid' land. The petitioners, however, in Order to establish their title filed a suit for declaration under Section 229B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was registered as Suit No. 34 of 1984-85.' The suit as filed by the petitioners was d...
Shanti Devi Wife of Late Lallan and Mishri Son of Vipat Vs. Rajasva Pa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2667
S.U. Khan, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of some question answer issued by some clerk of the Board of Revenue contesting respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner.2. I often find that on the basis of the question answer issued by the clerk authorities take action. It is only and only order which has got relevance. Whether stay is continuing or not can be demonstrated only by order of the Court and not by question answer issued by the clerk.3. Board of Revenue is directed to issue strict instructions to its ministerial staff to the effect that in future no such question answer which may show as to whether stay has been granted or not and whether stay is continuing or not shall be issued In this regard only and only copy of judicial order is admissible. Clerks have got no business to meddle in such matters.4. Sri S.K. Maurya learned standing counsel is directed to immediately send copy of this order to the Registrar, Board of Revenue f...
Asharfi Son of Chaudhari Vs. Vishwanath @ Vishram Son of Rajit and Gan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2643
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present second appeal has its genesis in the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1980 whereby Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1973 was allowed and suit being O.S. No. 267 of 1969 filed for demolition of construction of defendant over the land in dispute was decreed attended with further direction to the defendant to remove the constructions within 30 days and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff appellant.2. Learned counsel for the appellant defendant is present but there is no appearance for the respondent-plaintiff.3. The facts draped in brevity are that according to plaint allegations originally the land in suit was part of house owned by one Sahdeo. Sahdeo alienated the house in question including the land in question in favour of plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 4.6.1969 and it is claimed that that plaintiff has been in possession over the land in suit. The further allegations are that the defendants who had a covetous eye over the part of land, and had purchas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »