Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2047
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel.2. Since the common question of law is involved in these two writ petitions, the same are disposed by this common judgment.3. It emerges from the record that the petitioner's father had died in harness on 13.8.1980 and the petitioner had sought employment on a class IV post under the Dying in Harness Rules. The Committee of Management of Baiswara Inter College, Lalganj, District Raibareli has resolved on 1.8.1992 to appoint the petitioner under the aforesaid rules. The petitioner was appointed on 27.4.1992. The order of appointment reveals that he was appointed against a clear vacancy, the post fell vacant due to death of one Sri Suraj Pal Singh, a laboratory attendant of the college. Later the petitioner was disengaged from the service. A writ petition No. 2976 (SS) of 1993 was filed by the petitioner and this Court had passed an interim order on 20.4.1993, directing the opposite partie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR506]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the learned Counsel for the parties, agree that the petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.This writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 27.1.1997 by which the claim of the respondent-workman has been accepted and his termination has been held to be against the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a direction has been issued for his reinstatement with full back-wages.3. Brjef facts for the decision of this petition are that the respondent-workman approached the Conciliation Officer with the allegation that he has been working since July, 1978 in the Forest Department but without any reason or complying with the provisions of the Act, his services were dispensed with on 141.1992. Upon a failure report a reference under Section 4-K of the Act was made to the Labour Court, Ghazipur, which reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2296
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allaharad in Revision No. 51 of 2002-03 Smt. Meena Khanna v. State contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition and the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Allahabad, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition before this Court2. Brief facts giving rise cause of action of instant writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a house in Sadiapur locality in city Allahabad for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through registered sale deed on 5.2.1993 from one Dr. Budh Prakash son of Late Shyam Sunder Lal. The market value of the house in question on the date of execution of sale deed according to the circle rate fixed was Rs. 1,79,920/-( Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand nine hundred twenty), but the stamp duty on the sale deed in question was paid by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2070
M.K. Mittal, J.1. This petition has been filed against an order dated 26.9.20O3 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the original Application No. 1242 of 2001 filed by Rajesh Kumar the present petitioner, has been dismissed.2. The facts as mentioned in the petition, in brief are that the father of the petitioner was working as watchman of 24, E.D. A.F.S. Manauri, Allahabad, for the last 27 years. He died on 4th July 1999 during his service tenure at Allahabad. At the time of the death of the petitioner's father, he was living with his two sisters. The mother of the petitioner had already died in the year 1997. The petitioner's two elder brothers are married and living separately., They are petty daily wage earners (Mazdoors). The petitioner was studying at the time of the death of his father. Now he has also the responsibility of marrying his two sisters, who are living with him. The petitioner is not working anywhere and his family is with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(All)47; [2005]279ITR346(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has refened the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1976-77 for opinion to this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstance!) of the case, the Tribunal was in error in concluding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts and in holding that proceedings taken under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act were not valid?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is a trust and was created by late Shri Chintamni Ghosh under a registered deed dated 24th July. 1924. In the said deed the provision for descendants and other relatives of the settler for charity and for due performance of the worship of the family deity was made. The deed of trust sets out the names of different beneficiaries and the extent of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)(1)SLJ379CAT
1. Two spinal questions of law emerge out of this O. A. filed by the applicant: (a) While the Rules provide for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the inquiry report and in case of disagreement it is the Disciplinary Authority which could strike a note of disagreement with reasons thereof, whether instead of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority could record such a disagreement? (b) Whether judicial intervention is permissible at the stage when the note of disagreement is recorded by the Competent Authority? 2. A brief calendar bearing on the landmark events, giving the core facts relevant and required for consideration of the above questions, is necessary right at the beginning.3. The applicant, posted as Executive Engineer, Jhansi, North Central Railway, had to face a charge sheet dated 29.10.1997 for certain alleged misconducts, which he stoutly denied by his reply dated 06.02.1998. The logical sequence of appointment of Inquiry Officer, conducing of inquiry and submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3717
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein are the orders dated 28.11.1988, 2.1.1992, 16.8.1992 and 15.3.1999 passed by Addl. Collector, Etawah, Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Kanpur Division Kanpur and the Board of Revenue respectively.2. It would appear that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Board of Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Addl. Collector Etawah whereby allotment made in favour of the petitioner-dated 19.3.1986 was rescinded allegedly without application of mind. It would appear that the petitioner also knocked at the doors of every appropriate forums in between and ultimately, invoked the procedure of this Court for appropriate relief.3. From a scrutiny of submissions advanced across the bar it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner in the forefront is that the order canceling allotment had been passed exparte and without application of mind and further that the authority recorded no finding citing reasons for his conclusion.4. I have heard learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1119; 2005(3)ESC1642
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2004 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar by which the learned Court refused to make the award of the Arbitrator dated 27.02.1999 the Rule of the Court.2. Smt. Ira Sharma, the proprietress of the appellant-firm appealed in person and submitted that the aforesaid judgment and order should be set aside and the aforesaid Award should be made Rule of the Court. She was confronted as under what circumstances the respondent No. 1, Sri Lalta Prasad, the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar has been impleaded as a party by name in this appeal. Her reply came that he failed to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has violated mandate of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. In fact, we tried to find out as what directions had been issued by their Lordships which have not been complied wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-bank against the part of the judgment and order dated March 11, 2002, passed by the then presiding officer, DRT, Jabalpur in O. A. No. 246 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the claim of the bank has been reduced to Rs. 17,57,199 from the claim of Rs. 34,17,000 and also reduced the interest from the bank rate to that of simple interest. Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm having partners defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and Shri Vishnu Kumar Rongta (deceased) and was engaged in doing business of steel re-rolling mill and for the purpose of purchase of raw material and meeting other business needs, partners of respondent No. 1-firm applied for financial help from the appellant-bank and cash credit loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 15.50 lakhs at interest of 16.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests together with other charges on the cash credit facility. The partners had bound them by executing several documents as required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All230; 2005(3)AWC2302
R.P. Misra and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent - State Government in respect of the grant of mining lease to the respondent No. 3 over plot No. 29/3, Area 30 Acres, Buksha Khadar, Tehsil Mahauda, District - Hamirpur, by the impugned order dated 2.4.2004 and the consequential lease dated 5.4.2004. The petitioner contends that the right of the petitioner to apply for the aforesaid area has been arbitrarily taken away by the respondents by not resorting to publication of any notice making the land available to the public at large and, as such, the petitioner and such alike persons have been denied their right to participate in the proceedings for grant of mining lease. The order has been challenged on the aforesaid grounds and also that none of the ingredients of Rule 68 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1963 exist so as to warrant exercise of power therein by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 3 whose earlier lease had be...
Tag this Judgment!