Allahabad Court July 2006 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.
Vijay Shanker Pandey Son of Late Rajendra Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3760
A.P. Sahi, J. 1. The petitioner has questioned the validity and the correctness of the impugned order dated 30.3.2005, annexure XIII to the writ petition, whereby the respondent No. 3 has passed an order for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as junior clerk on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as a dependant (adopted son) of Late Rajendra Pandey. Pursuant to the said order dated 30,3.2005, the Superintending Engineer has passed an order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, which order is also impugned and appended as annexure XII to the writ petition.2. The grounds of challenge to the impugned orders are that it has been passed on the alleged recommendation of one Sri Kamla Prasad Yadav a member of the legislative Assembly, who has forwarded the compalint of Sri Ram Nain Yadav. The complaint found passage to the Chief Minister's office, whereupon the Chief Engineer was directed to take action and accordin...
Smt. Shamim Akhtar Vs. TajuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3668
ORDERBarkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Heard Sri M.A. Haq, advocate for the petitioner.2. In this writ petition, arising out of refusal of grant of ex-parte injunction in a Civil Suit being No. 798 of 2003 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) West, Allahabad and the subsequent dismissal of Revision No. 08 of 2004 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Allahabad the only contention from the side of the petitioner-plaintiff here is that the observations made in his order by the revising Judge are likely to prejudice the petitioner-plaintiff at subsequent stages of the injunction application, because the revising Court has given findings with regard to the title of the petitioner.3. When a Court considers the grant or refusal of an interim injunction, it has, as of necessity to look into the availability of a prima Jade case or otherwise. While assessing, whether there is a prima facie case or not, the Court will have to look into the documents of title deeds, and come to a conclusion,...
Youth Hostel Through Its Warden Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3655; [2006(111)FLR33]
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 28.11.2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Industrial Dispute No. 71 of 2001, Smt. Anita Sharma v. Youth Hostel, annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated the following facts:In the year 1956 the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru summed up on the philosophy of youth hostel in a very precise manner, with that passion which characterized his love and passion for youth; the Indian Chapter of Youth Hostel Scheme was initiated in 1949 when Youth Hostel of India was formed at Mysore. The association built its own Youth Hostel at New Delhi in December, 1977. The Government of India extended its support to the movement in 1966 when it decided to provide one model Youth Hostel for each State with its own funds during the Fourth and Fifth Five Year Plan. Subsequently, in the Seventh Five Year Plan 60 Youth Hostels were made by the Department...
Shashi Kant Tiwari Son of Sri Kamla Prasad Tiwari Vs. Senior Superinte ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3800
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Wasim Alam, Standing Counsel in opposition thereof.2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 25.9.2000 (annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the S. S. P., Gorakhpur.3. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and, therefore, by giving brief summary the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of.4. Petitioner was working as Constable in U.P. Police and he was posted at Police Station Tiwaripur, district Gorakhpur. On the ground that on 27.8.1998, petitioner was posted on a picket duty but by giving a wrong information about his ailment he got leave and on 28.8.1998 he was caught travelling with another man at India Nepal Border along with some foreign cell phones having its value about Rs. 14.75 lakhs, he was placed under suspension by order dated 3.9.1998 and thereafter a preliminary enquiry report was submitte...
Asharfi Devi and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC774
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.A. Murtuza, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000 per month. This fact has not been taken into consideration, rather his income has been held to be Rs. 1,300 per month. It is held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month and the compensation be awarded accordingly and the same may be paid to the claimants from the date of award along with interest.3. The excess amount that we have directed to be paid to the claimant-appellants be paid expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.4. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed....
Devi Prasad Mishra S/O Sri Krishna Avtar Mishra, Ex-manager Sri Nehru ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3673
A.K. Yog, J.1. At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties agreed that the writ petition, which gives rise to the present special appeal, while deciding Special Appeal, may also be disposed of, if required.2. Admitted facts of the case, necessary to decide the dispute between the parties, are being recapitulated, in brief, hereinafter.3. 'Shri Nehru Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Alamganj, Jaunpur' called 'the School' is a recognized institution imparting education upto High School level as contemplated under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (as amended uptodate); petitioner-Appellant is ex-Manager of the School who had made complaints regarding illegal and fraudulent appointments in the School by one Shailendra Pratap Singh (Manager of the Committee of Management of the School/Respondent No. 5), copy of one of such complaint dated 23-7-1998/Annexure-l to the writ petition; somewhat 33 persons were found to have been appointed as Teacher/Non-Teachinp, emplo...
Mohd. Farooq Vs. Addl. Commissioner Iind, Allahabad Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3754
Shishir Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 17.8.2004 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 91 of 2004, Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the impugned order dated 5.1.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 76 of 1983, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the dispute relates to plot No. 267 total area 2 bighas 12 biswas (area in dispute 1 bigha 6 biswas) situate in village Usmapur, Pargana Mah, Tehsil Handia, district Allahabad. One Ram Jatan respondent No. 3rd set filed an application under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in the year 1983 which was registered as Case No. 76 of 1983 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, district Allahabad. This application appears to have been filed with the allegation that he purchased the land, half share of plot No. 267 from one Ram Surat son of Ram Sunder and applied for mutati...
Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All23
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Pratap learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.2. The petitioner, who held earlier mining lease, which was to expire, submitted an application for renewal, as contemplated under Rule 6A, U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The said application was found in order under Rules 6A read with Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1963. There was no application/prayer to condone delay in filing this application.3. The District Magistrate/District Mines Officer, however, found that there was delay of 7 days in submitting the application, i.e. 7 days beyond six months as referred to in Rule 6A of the Rules, 1963. The District Magistrate referred the matter to the State Government with the recommendation to condone the delay as provided under Rule 6A(2) of Rules, 1963. The State Government rejected application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated May 19, 2006/annexure-9 to the writ petition on ...
Kamal Saini and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC420
Vinod Prasad, J.1. A whole family consisting of father Roop Singh Saini, (applicant No. 2), his wife Mrs. Kassi Devi (applicant No. 3), and their three sons Kamal Saini (applicant No. 1), Devendra Saini (applicant No. 4) and Kailash Chand Saini (applicant No. 7), wife of Devendra Saini, namely, Smt. Pushpa Devi (applicant No. 5), daughter of Roop Singh Saini and Kassi Devi, namely, Sunita and her husband Ramveer Saini (applicant Nos. 6 and 8) have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 495 of 2005, State v. Kamal Saini and Ors. under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, IPC and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act relating to P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr pending before the C.J.M., Bulandshahr. Their subsequent prayer is for stay of further proceedings of aforesaid case interregnum.2. Incapsulate facts, which have given rise to the present application are that an application under Section 15...
Ram Bilas Mahto Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC733; 2007ACJ2484
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Pratap Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ved Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dismissing the application for restoration of the claim petition.3. It appears the appellant Ram Bilas Mahto had filed a claim petition before the learned Railway Tribunal, which was dismissed in default on 21.10.2002, which was a date dixed for framing issues. He moved an application on 10.1.2003 for recall of the order dated21.10.2002. The application was rejected with a finding that there was undue delay in filing the restoration application and the application was barred by limitation because it was not filed within the period of limitation i.e., 30 days. The Tribunal doubted the genuineness of medical certificate filed by the appellant in support of the restoration appli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »