Allahabad Court October 2013 Judgments
Chandrabhan Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
Rajes Kumar, J. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners have been appointed as Supervisors in the year 1982 and 1983 respectively in the Social Welfare Department. By the letters dated 04.04.2008 and 27.10.2008 written by the Secretary, Government of U.P. to Principal Secretaries/Head of various departments of Uttar Pradesh applications were invited from those employees, who were willing for the post of District Minority Welfare Officer in the Minority Welfare Department temporarily on transfer of service basis. The petitioners applied for the aforesaid post. By the order of Principal Secretary, dated 27.07.2009, annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioners have been appointed as District Minority Welfare Officer temporarily on transfer of service basis for the period of one year or till the selection of regular candidate by the Public Service ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2013
Dinesh Gupta, J. 1. This Revision is preferred against the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut, whereby revisionists were summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. Sessions Trial No. 479 of 2003, State of U.P. v. Girish Mohan and Others. 2. The brief facts of this Revision are that one Ashok Kumar lodged an F.I.R. against Girish Mohan Garg and Deepak Mohan Garg at P.S. Brahmpuri, Meerut with the allegation that the accused have murdered his daughter by administering poison when their demand of dowry was not fulfilled. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and case was committed to the Court of Session, thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut for trial. During the pendency of the trial, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved by Additional District Government Counsel wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Kataria Vs. Suraksha Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
B. Amit Sthalekar,J. This is a writ petition at the behest of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.06 of 2011, Smt. Suraksha Devi Vs. Sunil Kumar Kataria. The genesis of the case may be briefly encapsulated. The respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) against the petitioner being P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011 for release of the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant file his written statement alleging that the application has been filed with a mala fide motive inasmuch as the respondent had several shop properties in Bijnor itself and therefore, there was no bonafide need for the shop in question. In the written statement, it was further alleged that earlier also the respondent had filed a similar P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for r...
Tag this Judgment!The Nagar Panchayat and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
Manoj Misra,J. 1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, holding brief of Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for respondent-workman. As parties have exchanged their affidavits, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 14th July, 2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly in adjudication case no.14 of 1999, which was published on 28th September, 2006, whereby termination of service of the respondent-workman on 1st March, 1989 has been held to be illegal and it has been ordered that the respondent-workman would be reinstated in service. However, with regard to back wages, it was provided that from the date of termination of service up to the date of reference i.e. 17.02.1999, the respondent-workman would not be entitled for any back wages w...
Tag this Judgment!The Nagar Panchayat and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
Manoj Misra,J. 1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, holding brief of Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for respondent-workman. As parties have exchanged their affidavits, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 14th July, 2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly in adjudication case no.14 of 1999, which was published on 28th September, 2006, whereby termination of service of the respondent-workman on 1st March, 1989 has been held to be illegal and it has been ordered that the respondent-workman would be reinstated in service. However, with regard to back wages, it was provided that from the date of termination of service up to the date of reference i.e. 17.02.1999, the respondent-workman would not be entitled for any back wages w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›