Allahabad Court September 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.
Bharat Timber Stores/House Vs. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Pa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3747
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sattsh Mandhyan, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. It transpires that the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti issued a notice dated 6.1.2007 alleging that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under Section 9 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 by selling the wood without paying the Mandi fee and development cess and consequently directed the petitioner to deposit the said fee and cess within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, failing which, proceedings under Section 20(1) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 would be initiated for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue.3. The petitioner, on receipt of the said notice, filed an objection before the Secretary, Mandi Samiti stating therein that the petitioner had not violated any conditi...
Nagarmahapalika Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ163All
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against award dated September 14, 1994 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Adjudication Case No. 43/1983. The matter, which was referred to the Labour Court as to whether action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Rakesh Rawat (respondent No. 2 in this writ petition) w.e.f., April 1, 1980 was appropriate and legal or not? The Labour Court through impugned award held that termination was illegal. Accordingly, reinstatement with full back-wages was ordered. Through interim order dated March 29, 1995, passed in this writ petition, execution of impugned award was stayed.3. The case of the workman was that he was in service of the petitioner since July 1, 1976 when he was appointed on the post of peon and he was illegally removed from service on April 1, 1980 without any reason or charge or enquiry. It was also mentioned that no notice or compens...
Qazi Abdul Wahab (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Special Judge (Additional Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2191
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of tenants respondents.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by him against original tenant, respondent No. 3 Master Salahuddin in the form of S.C.C Suit No. 100 of 1979. Eviction was sought on the ground of default and decree for recovery of arrears of rent was also prayed for. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 50 per month.3. Prior to the filing of the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition, landlord had filed another similar suit being Suit No. 253 of 1973. In the earlier suit, tenant had deposited the entire rent on the first date of hearing, hence suit was dismissed for eviction and landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by tenant under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Against the said decision, landlord filed revision before the District Judge, which was ...
Mithaee Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ612
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether criminal revision can be dismissed in default or non-prosecution and whether such order can be recalled' are two cardinal questions that fall for consideration in this restoration application, by means of which, the order dated 30.03.2007 passed in criminal revision No. 4693 of 2006 Mithaee Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. is sought to be recalled.2. From the record, it transpires that criminal revision referred to above was listed on 30.03.2007. When the case was called out, the Counsel of the revisionist was not present even in the revised list. Hence, Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J. passed the following order:List is revised. Even in the revised list, learned Counsel for the revisionist is not present.This revision is dismissed for non prosecution.Interim order dated 24.08.2006 stands vacated.3. Prayer to recall above mentioned order has been made in this restoration/recall application, which is accompanied by the affidavit of revisionist. No counter affidavit...
Kumar Pal Singh Vs. Chief Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3683
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri J.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner had joined as a Runner on 1.10.1970 in the respondent-Electricity Department. At the time when he entered service, his date of birth was recorded as 12.1.1949. The petitioner represented for change of his date of birth and got himself medically examined within a couple of years of his entering into service. The Civil Surgeon examined the petitioner on 18.4.1972 and gave a certificate that the petitioner was 21 years of age, meaning thereby that his date of birth would be 18.4.1951. Accordingly, by order dated 14.5.1972 amendment was made in his service book to the effect that his date of birth was 18.4.1951 instead of 12.1.1949. Now by means of the impugned order dated 6.5.2008, he has been infor...
Virendra Vs. Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3685
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Deoria in Election Petition No. 6 of 2006, whereby a preliminary issue has been decided and a direction has been issued to the District Magistrate for the recounting of the votes. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was declared elected as the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Gaura Barhaj, Deoria by a margin of 188 votes in the election that was held on 31.10.2006. The petitioner secured 6,422 votes in contrast to his nearest rival AJit Kumar Jaiswal, respondent No. 3, who secured 6,234 votes. The respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the declaration of the result, filed an election petition under Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 challenging the election of the petitioner. The election was challenged on various grounds and one of the ground was, that there was an irregularity in the counting of votes...
Sarvesh Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3682; [2008(119)FLR823]
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties arid with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.2. The petitioner is a Senior Assistant, working in the Education Department. By means of the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed only on the basis of some incident, which had taken place in the year 2005. The petitioner was never issued any charge-sheet earlier and having worked at several places regularly since 2005, there has been no charge against the work and conduct of the petitioner. No enquiry was conducted for such alleged i...
Rama Shanker and ors. Vs. Ram Swaroop and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC1023
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. R.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. In the present case, both the courts below-trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the agreement to sale was not executable because of subsequent developments.3. It is noteworthy that no substantial questions had been framed by the Court, while entertaining the appeal on 27.10.1980. The appeal is yet to be admitted for proceeding further. The appeal was filed after much delay and the same was time barred. This appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.9.2003 and on 5.3.2008, on the application submitted by the appellant, the appeal was restored and the same was ordered to be listed for admission.4. This second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1979, passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Unnao in R.C.A. No. 17 of 1978, Lala and Ors. v. Ram Swaroop...
Sheo Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR859]
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the selection/placement of respondent No. 6 made by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in Marwar Inter College, Gorakhpur, and further for directing the respondent to consider the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the said Institution which would fall under 50% promotional quota.2. A Counter Affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed.3. Copy of the Writ Petition was served on the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. However, no Counter Affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of the said respondent.4. The Office Report dated 24.3.2007 shows that the notices, sent by Registered Post to the respondents Nos. 4 and 6, have been served, and the Acknowledgement Cards have been received back. However no Counter Affidavit o...
Prem Chandra Mishra Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3671
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Prem Chandra Mishra, landlord of the premises in question has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 30.10.1995 passed by II Additional District Judge, Etah allowing Revision No. 6 of 1994 filed by the tenant Satya Prakash Sharma by setting aside order dated 11.4.1994 passed by Judge Small Causes/Additional Civil Judge, Etah in S.C.C. Misc. Case No. 1 of 1993 and directing for fresh decision in accordance with law on the question of compliance of provisions of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.2. Brief background of the case is that suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner against the tenant concerned Satya Prakash Sharma being J.S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1993. In the said proceedings tenant entered appearance and filed his written statement and also deposited Rs. 5,200 on the first date of hearing. On 27.4.1993 an order was passed to proceed ex parte against the tenant concerned fixing 17.5.199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »