Allahabad Court August 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.
Satya NaraIn Misra Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4204
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner retired as an employee of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) on 31.12.1994. Through letter dated 04.09.2000 (Annexure IV) written by Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Kanpur from where the petitioner had retired to Director Pension Directorate U.P. Lucknow it was communicated that petitioner had been appointed on 12.1.1959 in U.P. Roadways Gorakhpur and on the said post he had been declared to be permanent on 14.04.1960. It was further directed that petitioner had received E.P.F. contribution and gratuity of non pensionable post, hence pension must be granted to him after adjustment of the said amount with interest. Pension payment order was issued on 3.11.2000 for payment of pension/family pension to the petitioner, a true copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. However, after two days that order was withdrawn by order dated 5.11.2000 (Annexure VII) which has been challenged through this wr...
Praphulla Kumar Sharma Vs. Indra Dutt Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4086
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Shri P. K. Jain counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Shri S. N. Gupta counsel for the respondents.2. The landlord filed release application on 4.10.1995, under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) in respect of House No. 271 Chaukey Gate Firozabad, which was let out to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 15. The release application was contested by the tenant. The written statement was filed on 23.2.1998, The objection of the tenant petitioner is that the accommodation in question was not required bona fidely as the release was sought to sell the accommodation in question. However, on perusal of the release application, it transpires that the applicant No. 1 who is legal practitioner, is living in rented accommodation at Kanpur and the applicant No. 2 is an employee of Indian Railways (Northern Eastern Railways) and working as Chief Draftsman in the office of Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur. The applicant No. 3 is servi...
Pradeep Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: AIR2010All3; 2010(1)AWC51
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have raised question of applicability of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the Act of 2002) for securitising the mortgaged assets secured for recovery of the financial assistance given by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (in short, IHFL) prior to the notification dated 19.9.2007 by the Central Government issued declaring IHFL a 'financial institution' under sub Clause (iv) of Clause (m) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 2002.2. The Act of 2002 was enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, w.e.f. 17.12.2002 replacing the Ordinance notified on 21.6.2002. A secured creditor under Section 2(zd) is defined to mean any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institution...
Shyam NaraIn Gupta and ors. Vs. Shri Bal Krishna Khandelwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4065
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. The writ petition is taken up in the revised list. Shri Manish Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioners is present. None present for the respondent tenant.2. Despite time having been granted on several occasions, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. On 10th April 2009, this Court directed to list this case peremptorily on 21.4.2009. The case is on the list continuously. In the circumstances, I proceed to hear Shri Manish Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioners.3. A released application was filed on 14th July 1995 by the landlord under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short referred to as the Act), for eviction of tenant from the accommodation situated on the ground floor of property No. 33/198-B, Mani Ram Bagia, Kanpur Nagar, comprising of three rooms, two Dalans and one Aangan, which was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 232.30 including taxes.4. The release application was filed on the ground that the accommodation in tenancy of the t...
Doodh Nath and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3534
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 24.12.2008 passed by D.D.C., Jaunpur in Revision No. 3227 of 2008, Babu Nandan v. State. For recalling the said order, an application was filed, which was rejected on 28.7.2009. That order has also been challenged through this writ petition.2. Revision was filed after 16 years. Petitioners filed objections to the delay condonation application, which are Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Objections were supported by affidavit, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, learned D.D.C. in his order dated 24.12.2008 simply mentioned that there was no objection to the delay condonation application, hence in the interest of justice delay was being condoned. Firstly there was very serious objection. Secondly, delay of 16 years cannot be condoned in such a cryptic manner without even mentioning in the order the reason of condonation of delay mentioned in the delay condonation application.3. I am constantly f...
Anita Vs. Indrawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3767
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Facts In short giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:Election for the office of the President of the Nagar Panchayat Piplganj, tehsil Campariganj, District Gorakhpur was held in the year 2006. The writ petitioner as well as the contesting respondent Indrawati alongwith other persons contested the said elections. The petitioner Anita was declared elected after counting on 6.11.2006. The election of Anita was challenged by means of Election Petition No. 4 of 2006 under Section 19/20 of the U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam. Amongst other one of the basic issue raised for questioning the election was that the elected candidate was underage on the relevant date and therefore ineligible to contest the elections. The acceptance of her nomination paper was therefore illegal, resulting in material irregularity and therefore the same be set aside.2. The issue, as to whether on the relevant date the elected candidate was minor, was c...
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC220
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Seven individual disputes were raised by the workers with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination w.e.f. 23rd of December, 1986. These disputes were referred to the labour court for adjudication which were clubbed together and a single award was passed by the labour court directing reinstatement with back wages and with continuity of service. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that according to the workers, they were engaged from various dates in a permanent capacity and had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year, and that, their services were arbitrarily dispensed with by the employers without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act). The workers contended that the dispensation of their services was patently illega...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4069
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.1. Respondents - appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44344 of 2006, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.2. Writ petitioners-respondents are employed in U.P. Police Radio Department. In the light of the recommendation of the Pay Commission followed by the report of the Equivalence Committee, their pay-scale has been revised but the benefit of the said pay-scale was given from the date of issuance of Government order dated 30.10.2004 and not from 1.1.1996 as given to other employees of the State Government. They filed Writ Petition No. 67340 of 2005 before this Court and by order dated 24.10.2005, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the appellants herein to take decision in accordance with law within stipulated period. In the light of the aforesaid direction of this Court, the State Government by its memo dated 11...
Uma Sahni Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC333
Arun Tandon, J.1. Petitioner before this Court claims to be 'mallah' by caste. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that 'mallah' has been included in the list of 'vimukti jaati' vide Government order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 21.11.1992, enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In view of the circular, it is claimed that petitioner's caste is now included in the list of 'vimukti Jaati' and therefore, she is to be treated as Scheduled Tribes. Reference has been made to the caste certificate issued in her favour by the Tehsildar. Reliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court in the case of, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25142 of 2004, Bhaiya Lal and Anr. v. Special Secretary, Department of Education and Ors., decided on 20.3.2009 as well as in the case of Writ Petition No. 23408 of 2004, Munna Prasad v. State of U.P., decided on 25.6.2004 (delivered by me).2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records o...
Pragati Seeds Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC126
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel for the Mandi Parishad.2. The question which arises for consideration in the present petition is, whether the certified seeds is an agricultural produce or not? The facts giving rise to this petition is, that the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) was enacted to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for establishment of a market in Uttar Pradesh. Section 2(a) of the Adhiniyam defines 'agricultural produce' as under:2 (a) 'agricultural produce' means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animals hubandary, or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »