Allahabad Court January 2009 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.
Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1640
Prakash Krishna, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, a common question of law is involved. In these writ petitions, quashing of notification issued under Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act has been sought for. The Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 47304 of 2005 is the leading case. The arguments were heard in the said writ petition.2. The Writ Petition No. 10070 of 2006 is with respect to the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act relating to villages Bachgaon, Bhidarwa, Julendhi and Sakha, Pargana, Tehsil and District Mathura dated 21.7.2005.3. Writ Petition No. 57395 of 2008 relates to the village Kuchesar, Pargana and Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahr which was notified for consolidation proceedings under Section- 4 of the Act. The Consolidation Commissioner by the order dated 25th July, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition has dismissed the representation of the petitioners to keep the village outside the purview of the consolidation operation. The quashing of the said order...
Kamala Pati Tiwari and anr. Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1072
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri A.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, who has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents.2. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.1.2000 passed in Civti. Appeal No. 177 of 1971, Shiv Nath Tripathi and Ors. v. Smt. Lalita Devi and Ors. by the IInd Additional District Judge, Deoria, whereby the lower appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had dismissed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 18.8.1969 executed by the defendant Smt. Lalita Devi and had decreed the suit partly with respect to the sale deed dated 25.8.1995 and for permanent injucntion against the defendants No. 1 to 4 relating to the land 125/2 Area 67 decimals towards east 134/1 area 65 decimals towards west and 141 area 8 decimals as well as the half southern portion of the house Ka, AA, DA, THA and its sahen towards east mentioned in Schedule A of th...
NaraIn Trivedi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1686
1. Shri Saurabh Sinha and Sri Manish Srivastava, Advocates filed parcha pairvi on behalf of the complainant. It may be placed on record.2. Objections filed on behalf of the State i against the prayer of bail be placed on record.3. Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, learned Counsel for the appellants, A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikas Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh Sinha, counsel for the complainant on the prayer of bail of appellant Sri Narain Trivedi, Ashok Kumar @ Khanna and Pramod Kumar @ Nanhkau convicted by Sri Dilip Singh, the then Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Fatehpur in Special S.T. No. 9/2003 (State v. Sri Narain Trivedi and Ors.) under Sections 307/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the SC/ST Act') Act, P. S. Husenganj, District Fatehpur and perused the record.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that learned Sessions Judge wrongly convicted and se...
D.A.V. Public School (U.P.) Vs. Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Ac ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC823; (2009)IIILLJ399All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No. 2, Arun Kumar was an employee of petitioner school. His services were terminated on 31.3.2001. Thereafter, on 23.6.2004, he filed an application before prescribed authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which was registered as P.W.A. Case No. 60 of 2004. In the said application, he claimed that from 13.4.1991, he was appointed as O.S.D. in the petitioner school and he was paid less wages than the wages required to be paid in accordance with the recommendations of Vth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.4.1996. It was stated that the difference came to Rs. 6,75,918 (about Rs. 6,80,000). Ten times compensation was also claimed.3. It has been held in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad v. Prescribed Authority, under Payment of Wages Act 2006 (109) FLR 1101 : 2006 (3) AWC 2992 and R.D.S.O. Basic School v. Prescribed Authority 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1472, that Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not applicable to educational institutions...
Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1068
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Jagannath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2006, passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated.3. The petitioner was constable and was posted at Jaunpur when his services was terminated by the impugned order. The services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that in a murder case of Yadunandan Uppadhyaya s/o Ram Nohar Upadhyaya police station Shahganj, Jaunpur, Case Crime No. 546 of 2006 under Sections 302,. 307 and 323, I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner. Sri Siddhartha Verma was appointed as Enquiry Officer and in the preliminary enquiry report dated 2.8.2006, it was found that the petitioner was involved in 21 criminal cases apart from the Case Crime No. 546 of 2006. Detail of such cases are men...
Vice-chancellor, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1458
R.K. Agrawal and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2008, passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has, inter alia, given the following interim directions:Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned hereinabove, it is directed that the respondent-University shall itself have the answer copy of 'Educational Administration and Management' paper of B. Ed. Examination-2007 of the petitioner revaluated through an expert examiner, who may be the Head of the concerned department, within three weeks from today and submit a report, alongwith the marks awarded to the petitioner after revaluation.2. It appears that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 appeared as regular student in B.Ed. Examination, 2007 conducted by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. In the answer book of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 in respect of the 7th paper, namely, 'Educational Administratio...
Ram Niwas Bharti, President Laxman Bharti Saraswati Vidya Mandir Vs. A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ677All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Ram Niwas Bharti, President of Laxman Bharti Sarswati Vjdya Mandir, Bhiti, District Mau has filed all these writ petitions against different employees of the school. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law. Seven employees of the school, each of whom is respondent No. 2 in each writ petition, filed application for payment of minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Delay was condoned by the prescribed authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and application was allowed for payment of balance amount i.e. difference in between the amount required to be paid and the amount actually paid. The period for which, the amount was claimed was in between 1985 to 1988 by each employee. As far as condonation of delay is concerned, I do not find any fault. Moreover, in exercise of writ jurisdiction normally no interference is made in the orders of condoning the delay unless there is something utterly wrong with the order.2. Th...
Devinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1587
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.First Writ Petition:2. The facts of the first writ petition are that Surjit Singh, petitioner No. 4 was tenure holder/bhumidhar of 20.08 acres of land. He filed an application before Tehsildar purporting to be an application for mutation under Section 33/34/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking mutation of the names of his three sons, i.e., petitioners No. 1 to 3 over an area of 9 acres of agricultural land (3 acres to each) comprised in Plot No. 6 (M). Naib Tehhsildar, Tehsil and District Pilibhit allowed the application on 29.1.1982. The case was registered as Case No. 30 of 1981. Through the said order, 9 acres of land of Surjeet Singh was mutated in the names of his three sons (3 acres each). It was stated by the petitioners that it was done in pursuance of oral family settlement/partition. A.D.M., (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit started proceedings for determination of stamp duty on the family settlement. The case was registered ...
Hindu Sewa Sadan Chikitsalaya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ407All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This writ petition has been filed by the employer. Mata Prasad, workman respondent No. 3 raised the industrial dispute that his services had illegally been terminated by the petitioner employer. Joint Secretary on behalf of the State Government made reference to the Labour Court under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act on August 6, 1988 to the effect that as to whether the action of the employer terminating the services of its employee Mata Prasad w.e.f. February 26, 1988 was valid and appropriate or not? The matter was registered as Adjudication Case No. 249 of 1988 on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P., Varanasi. Written statements and rejoinder statements were filed by both the parties before the Labour Court. It was stated by the employer in the written statement and rejoinder statement, copy of which are Annexures-5 & 6 to the writ petition that services of respondent No. 3 were terminated on March 5, 1988...
Merind Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prescribed Authority (Under Payment of Wages ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ120All
ORDERSabhajeet Yadav, J.1. Heard Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Singh for respondent No. 2.By this petition, the petitioners have sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceeding of P.W.A. Case No. 18/2005 Ajit Singh v. Merind Ltd. and Anr. pending before the Prescribed Authority (under Payment of Wages Act)/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Another relief for writ of prohibition restraining the respondent No. 1 from entertaining or adjudicating upon the proceedings in P.W.A. Case No. 18/2005 has also been sought for. This petition was allowed in open Court on December 2, 2008 with indication that reasons will be given later on, therefore, the same are given hereinafter.2. The brief facts leading to the case are that respondent No. 2 made an application on April 6, 2004 under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as 'the 1936 Act' before respondent No. I/Prescribed Authority under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »