Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)2UPLBEC1738
..... humanitarian consideration. the learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in h.c. puttaswamy and ors. v. the hon'ble chief justice of karnataka high court, bangalore and ors., jt 1990 (4) sc 474 : 1991 supp. (2) scc 421, whereunder this court reviewed the earlier orders of the court and treated the services of the appointees to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209
1. The petitioner who was elected to the office of Adhyaksha (Chair person), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent State Government removing the petitioner from her office on the basis of alleged charges which the State Government contends to have been proved against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 Act') read with The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the 1997 Rules'). Haunted and hotly pursued by her rival political opponents, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a result of political motivation and is a complete mala fide exercise of power in violation of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC312
Binod Kumar Roy and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Whether the respondent who is a member of Higher Judicial Service of our State, for non-declaration of results of Intermediate Examination, 1997 of his own son could have initiated suo motu judicial proceedings in his own Court, proceeded to pass orders for production of Answer Books of his son and held guilty the Educational Authorities of the State after holding an Enquiry of committal of alleged offences under Indian Penal Code, Section 340 Cr PC and even guilty of committal of Contempt of Court Act and decided to make reference thereunder And whether this Court will be justified in interfering with his acts and orders/directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? are the core questions which have cropped up for adjudication in this writ proceedings.The Prayers :2. The petitioners - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Secondary)-cum-Chairman, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2897; 2005(3)ESC1790
..... paid for protecting and safeguarding the rights of the people to live in a 'healthy environment with minimal disturbance of the ecological , balance. the supreme court has clearly held in bangalore medical trust case [supra] that open spaces which has become the gift for the people cannot be sacrificed by converting it to some other use. therefore, allowing the construction merely ..... at 187, the supreme court held-for every locality green spaces and green belts have to be provided to provide lung space to the residents of the locality.'59. in bangalore medical trust v. b.s. muddappa and ors., a.i.r. 1991 sc 1902, the supreme court held-'protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)3UPLBEC3070
..... redetermined is held to be implicit in the act, the same for all intent and purport would amount to invoking the provisions of section 2 8-a of the land acquisition act indirectly which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.35. the right to get the amount of compensation redetermined must expressly be provided by the statute. such a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All416
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-11-96 passed by the District Judge. Ballia, in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1996 whereby the District Judge had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31-5-96 recorded by the civil Judge (Senior Division). Ballia. in Suit No. 94 of 1993.2. The suit in question was filed by Paras NathMishra, respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. He had instituted the suit for a declaration that an action sale of the suit property dated 3-5-89 and its subsequent confirmation dated 13-6-89 and the sale certificate dated 21 -5-93 were illegal and void. He made a prayer for a further declaration that the aforesaid sale had not conferred any right on the defendant. Accordingly the plaintiff prayed for an injunction so that the defendant No. 5 (present appellant) may not disturb the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid auction sale. It was his case that he purchased the suit property by registered sale deed from the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3348
..... paid same hra of 10% prior to 1983. the settlement dated 7.12.1983, was arrived at between the workmen and management of hindustan aeronautics limited, bangalore complex, bangalore and the agra workers union was not a party to the said agreement. the employees recruited and working at agra were being paid 15% hra whereas those ..... the industrial disputes. act read with rule 59 (4) of the industrial disputes act (karnataka) of 1957, between the workmen and management of hindustan aeronautics limited. bangalore complex, bangalore.' by the aforesaid settlement dated 7.12.1983, besides several other issues, the issue relating to house rent allowance was dealt with at item no. 10 wherein ..... % of their salary. on 7.12.1983, a settlement is alleged to have been arrived at between the workmen and management of hindustan aeronautics limited, bangalore complex, bangalore. a copy of the memorandum of settlement has been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition and a perusal of the same shows that it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1639; (2000)2UPLBEC1121
D.K. Seth, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Rule 47 of the U. P. Zila Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes Rules), 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Rules) against the judgment and order dated 27th October. 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh in Election Petition No. 146 of 1998. Both the plaintiff Madhwanand Joshi and defendant Madan Singh were elected as Members of the Zila Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as Z.P.) of Pithoragarh. During the term of the Z.P., Pithoragarh by a notification dated 28th October, 1997, the State Government created a new district of Champawat carving out a part from the district of Pithoragarh, By reason of the notification dated 18th April, 1995 issued by the State Government, the elected members of the Z.P., Pithoragarh would continue to Members of Z.P., Champawat untila Z.P., Champawat is established in the new district so created and then they will become members of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1735
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. This is defendants' appeal. It arises out of Original Suit No. 40 of 1976 filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of Plot No. 3838 area 11 Biswas in village Tappal and necessary correction to be made in the revenue record by deleting the revenue entry in favour of Ram Leela Maidan.2. The suit was instituted on the pleas, inter alia, that the father of the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid plot in a public auction held on 22.5.1935 and he became the owner of the said piece of land. It was earlier recorded as Nazool land and was put to auction by the State of U. P. Their father Sri Sukhram Sharma by a registered Izazatnaina dated 22.6.1938 permitted the Committee Ram Leela, Tappal, to organise annual Ramleela over 11 Biswas of land and the Ramleela Committee has been organising Ramleela since then. No right of ownership has been accrued to Ramleela Committee by holding Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000CriLJ310
M.C. Jain, J.1. The dispute relates to a public limited company-Trackparts of India Ltd. which is appellant No. 1 in Appeal No. 2 of 2000 and respondent No. 6 in Appeal No. 3 of 2000. The said appellant No. 1 and appellants Nos. 2 to 5 were respondents before the Company Law Board (for short 'CLB') in Company Petition No. 35 of 1998. An application had been made there by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the parties were on the board of directors. The appellants in the other Appeal No. 3 of 2000 are other shareholders of the company. In this appeal No. 3 of 2000, both the parties before the CLB in Company Petition No. 35 of 1998 have been arrayed as respondents. The appellants of this Appeal No. 3 of 2000 are family members/close relatives of appellants Nos. 2 to 5 of. Appeal No. 2 of 2000. In a sense, they are the alter ego of the appellants of Appeal No. 2 of 2000. The two appeals are connected with each other and are being dec...
Tag this Judgment!