Allahabad Court August 2008 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.
Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC67
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act in the form of Case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 40 per month. Landlord has died and substituted by his legal representatives.3. Prescribed authority/Munsif City, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 26.5.1982 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, landlord-petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982. A.D.J./Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 22.4.1983, hence this writ petition.4. I dismissed this writ petition on 5.1.2004 without looking into the merits of the case on the ground that even if arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner were accept...
Smt. Anshu Bharti Wife of Shyam Lal Bharti Vs. State of U.P. Through I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC691; [2008(119)FLR963]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. AS agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court since the issue raised by the petitioner is purely legal and, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel does not propose to file any counter affidavit, but has opposed the writ petition by making oral submissions.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2004 whereby the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun has placed the petitioner under suspension observing that she was found absent on inspection made on 2.11.2004 and her mother Smt. Panna Arya is working as Head Master of the said institution, and that she is being placed under suspension.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite more than three and half years have lapsed, but no departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. It is...
State of U.P. Through District Inspector of Schools and Accounts Offic ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR861]
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants and Sri R.R. Singh, learned Counsel for respondents.2. State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this intra court appeal against the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Single Jude dated 15th July, 2004, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19736 of 2001.3. Brief facts of the case relevant to be noticed for deciding the present appeal are as follows:4. Barauli Inter College, Barauli Rao, Aligarh is a recognised and aided intermediate college. The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers and staffs of the institution. One LT. Grade teacher working in the institution, namely, Govind Singh was promoted on ad-hoc basis as lecturer under order dated 9th July, 1997. As a consequence thereto resultant short term vacancy was caused in the institution in L.T. Grade. The vacancy is stated to have been advertised by the Committee of Man...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR359]; (2009)ILLJ696All
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Smt. Sunita Agarwal with regard to maintainability of the appeal. She submits that appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court since the order, which was challenged in the writ petition, was an order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under Section 6H(1) of UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), who according to her would answer the description of a 'Tribunal'.3. The contention so raised is misconceived. Under Section 6H(1) of the Act the Deputy Labour Commissioner only computes the money due to a workman in terms of an Award or Settlement etc. and thereafter certificate is issued. Section 6H(1) of the Act presupposes a settlement or award. Under Section 6H(1) of the Act the Deputy Labour Commissi...
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through It's Regional ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR988]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Respondent No. 1 workman was appointed as driver in the UP. State Road Transport Corporation Agra, in the year 1988. He was issued charge sheet dated 4.5.1988 for causing accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The charge sheet is as under:dk;kZy; {ks=h; izcU/kdmRrj izns'k lM+d ifjogu fuxe] vkxjk Ai= la[;k% vks&3@nq?kZ@34@27 93&5212 fnukad 4-5-1994Jh ekuflag iq= Jh eoklh ykyPkyd] QkmUMh uxj fMiks A}kjk lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd] Qk0 uxj fMiksAvkjksi&i;=,rn~ }kjk vkids fo:) fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxk;s tkrs gS& ;g gS fd fnukad 27-4-93 dks tc vki vkxjk&nsgjknwu; ekxZ ij cl la[;k ;w-ih- 80 bZ&9488 ij pkyu dk;Z dj jgs Fks rks xzke HkSlh ds lehi le; yxHkx 4045 cts vius rhozxfr ,oa ykijokgh ls cl dk pkyu dj ,d HkSlk cqXxh ls cl dks Vdjk fn;k A nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:Ik cqXxh es cSBs rhu O;fDr;ks dh ?kVuk LFky ij gh e`R;q gks x;h rFkk ,d yM+dh ?kk;y gks x;h ,oa cqXxh dk HkSlk ej x;k A vki nq?kZVuk ds Ik'pkr cl ...
Kailash Chandra Goel Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC1036
Pradeep Kant and Abhinava Upadhya, JJ.1. These are the two writ petitions, which are being decided by a common order.2. At the outset it would be appropriate to mention that earlier these writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.5.2001 against which order, several S.L.Ps. bearing Nos. 3940, 3941 and 3942-3943 of 2003 were filed, wherein the Apex Court set aside the aforesaid order only on the ground that the writ petitions were cognizable by Division Bench and were disposed of by the learned single Judge. The Apex Court thus set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and directed that the matter be considered by a Division Bench.3. It is in this light that we proceed to decide the aforesaid writ petitions.4. These present writ petitions challenge the State Government's order dated 24.7.2000 and 27.9.2000 by means of which the State Government has refused approval of the auction conducted by the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and also th...
Km. Poonam Baghel Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4058
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 11.10.2007 in Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University) at Agra. Though the said appointment was for a period of one year being a fixed term temporary appointment but the petitioner is entitled to continue even thereafter since no person on the regular basis has been appointed on the said post.2. However, I do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that the petitioner has no legal right to continue beyond the term of his appointment letter. The appointment letter clearly provides as under:I am directed to inform you that the Managing Council for the Non-University General Educational Institute has appointed you as Lecturer in Home Science in the D.E.I. Prem Vidyalaya Girls Intermediate College on temporary (fixed-term) basis for a period of one year only from the date you assume charge of the post, on a starting basic pay of Rs. 5,500 per m...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC361
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, in spite of rejection of the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. We have considered the issue of right of appeal in our judgment reported in 2007 (4) ADJ 101 (Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Smt. Manju and Ors.) following the Supreme Court reported in : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolleta Rohtagi and Ors.). Therefore, no new case is available therein excepting very few which are discussed herein.3. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appellant, contended before this Court that the order which has been passed rejecting the application on 20.9.2004 is falicious in nature. Either the application will be rejected or the same will be allowed. There is no scope of holding that the same is not maintainable as Insuran...
Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh (R.K. Singh) Son of Late Suryadeo Singh Vs. Sta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1297
V.M. Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether under Rule 4(2) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in brief 'Rules 1999') if a government servant has been suspended on the ground of pendency of a criminal charge, whether after his acquittal in the criminal trial, he is entitled to reinstatement in service with all benefits of service even though an appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal order.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager, Bijnor in the U.P. Forest Corporation. A trap was laid against the petitioner in which he was alleged to have accepted Rs. 5000/- as illegal gratification. Consequently, he was arrested on 13.6.2001 and an FIR was lodged and Case Crime No. 214 of 2001 under Section 7/13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1968 was registered against him. Since the petitioner was in jail for more than 48 hours, the Sta...
Apatesh Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC764
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment on the ground that his wife who was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for the Session 2002-03 and continued thereafter, died on 22.5.2008 and after her death the petitioner has moved an application seeking compassionate appointment but neither any decision has been taken thereafter nor he has been provided compassionate appointment. He, therefore, prayed that this application be directed to be decided by the respondent No. 4.2. However, in my view, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and, therefore, there is no question of directing the respondent No. 4 to decide the aforesaid application of petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that there is no provision either statutory or otherwise providing for any scheme of compassionate appointment to the heirs of the person who died while working as Shiksha Mitra. It is well-settled, if there is no scheme for providing compassionate appointment the same cannot be c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »