Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All96; (1992)1UPLBEC574
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, C.J. 1. Samar Bahadur Singh, the respondent No. 1 herein, holds B.Ed, and M.Ed, degrees of AllabahadUniversity and at all material times he was a lecturer in Psychology in K. P. Intermediate College, Allahabad. On June 30, 1989, post of the Principal of the said College having fallen vacant, the Committee of Management of the College appointed him the Principal, on ad hoc basis, as he was the seniormost Lecturer in the College; and by his letter dt. 4-12-1989 the District Inspector of Schools gave approval to his such appointment. While he was functioning in such capacity, a letter dt. May 4, 1990 was addressed by the Deputy Director of Education to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad inquiring about the qualification of Sri Singh. Sri Singh was also asked by the said Deputy Director to furnish details of his qualification, which he did Ultimately, Sri Singh received a direction from the Committee of Management on August 31, 1990, asking him to hand over c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All166
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Madan Lal Chawla who, according to him, was a displaced person and originally belonged to West Punjab. He settled in Kanpur in 1951. He was appointed on 21-5-1951 as clerk at the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, which is an institute owned and run by the Government, by the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. He was promoted to the post of stenographer and was declared provisional substantive stenographer'. According to the petitioner his work was very satisfactory and was appreciated and that be was awarded a special prize. The petitioner was working directly under the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur at the time the present incident arose. He never gave, according to him, any cause for a single warning to be issued against him and his service roll and record contain nothing but only good entries.2. A communication was received by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All201
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This order will be deemed to be a continuation of my order dated 18th September 1961 and the two orders together will constitute the judgment in this appeal. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal have been detailed in the previous order, but a very brief resume will not be out of place. In 1936 the ancestors of the plaintiffs-appellants entered into a transaction of sale and agreement to re-sell under two separate registered documents. By the first these ancestors sold certain plots of land to the four vendees for a sum of Rs. 2500/- and by the second the vendees agreed to reconvey the same property to the vendors if the sale pries was paid bach within ten years. The property was subject to pre-emption and one Misri Lal asserted this right successfully in the law courts. He stepped into the position of the vendors and obtained possession. Subsequently he transferred about half of the land to two persons, Shishpal Singh and Bhura Singh who are co-defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All274; 1965CriLJ672
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant Sheo Ratan Upadhya filed a complaint against the respondents, Gopal Chandra Nepali, Manager Sarvahitalshi Company, a publishing house of Varanasi, and Mahadeo Prasad, the proprietor of Deepak Press of Varanasi, for an alleged infringement of the copyright of a work called 'Shri Mahabharat' in Nepali language which was written by the complainant's father, Pandit Narendra Nath Upadhya. The book was first published in 1929 through the Sarvahitalshi Company during tne life time of its author who died on 19th June 1950, The complainant, the eldest son of his father, does not seem to possess personal knowledge about the publication or sale of the book and states in his complaint that he was busy with his studies until recently when he took up the management of the affairs of the family. The complainant alleges that his father had told him that he had never sold the copyright of the abovementloned work, which is mere hearsay and an admission in his own favour.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC3256
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma learned standing counsel for the State respondent.2. In this petition, the order dated 1.6.1990 dismissing the service of the petitioner by the Principal, Sri Singheshwari Inter College, Tetri Bazar, Siddharthanagar has been challenged.3. Petitioner was given a charge-sheet for unauthorised absence and for coming late several days and for irregularities and disobedience. The Principal of the College served a notice to the petitioner and after obtaining his explanation, the dismissal order dated 1.6.1990 was passed. According to the petitioner, his services were, if at all, could only be terminated on the basis of disciplinary enquiry conduced under Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short called 'Act'), which was brought on 10.3.1975 by Notification No. 7/562-V-8, dated 10.3.1975, according to which for the serious complaints and allegations, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1966]36CompCas617(All); [1966]61ITR563(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, and the question referred is:'Whether the net income of Rs. 1,81,569 and Rs. 1,97,198 received by the assessee in the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively on account of interest on securities is exempt from tax under Section 14(3) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking and registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. Its main business is providing finance to its own members and occasionally it provides banking facilities to non-members. It holds Government securities in the course of its banking business and earns interest from them. Its total income is more than Rs. 20,000. During the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, it received Rs. 1,81,569 and Rs. 1,97,198 respectively as interest on the securities and claimed that it was exempted from the liability to pay income-tax on them by Section 14(3)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All77
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that proceedings in Suits Nos. 503 of 1928 and 138 of 1930 and 66 of 1937 do not bind the plaintiff and that the plaintiff may be awarded possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff is an idol Sri Thakur Mukundji Maharaj, installed in a temple, situate in mohalla Bengali Gnat in the city of Mathura. The idol sues through its next friend Surra Chaube who claims to be its Manager. The defendant is one Goswami Purshottam Lalji who is the purchaser at auction of half of the temple in which the plaintiff idol is installed. The property in dispute is this half portion of the temple which has been taken possession of by the defendant in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff idol was under the Shebaitship of one Mahant Bhagwat Das who was a follower of the Vaishnavite Ramanandi Sampradaya. Earlier history of the shebaits of the idol is not known. But it is common ground that the Shebaits had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All91
Beg, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. It arises out of an application filed by the defendant-appellant under Section 34, Arbitration Act, for the stay of a suit. The suit in question was filed by M/S Hans Raj Gupta & Co., on 1-2-1950 against two defendants. The first defendant was the Union of India, the appellant in the present appeal, and the second defendant was one Sri Mahesh Chandra Gupta. Defendant No. 2 did not put in appearance, and the suit proceeded ex parte against him. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 2,28,397/14/5 against defendant No. 1 on the ground that there was a contract entered into between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 by virtue of which defendant No. 2 undertook to supply fire-wood to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the, assignee of the interest of defendant No. 2, and hence entitled to the amount claimed. It may be mentioned that in the plaint itself there was a definite and clear reference to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All82
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10th Sept. 1992passed by the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar, releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord-respondents in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 6-11-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in appeal.2. The petitioners are tenants of shop No. 3 at monthly rent of Rs. 50/ - in a portion of Premises No. 100 Martinganj, Muzafarnagar. Respondents Nos. I to 8 are landlords of the said premises. The property No. 100, Martinganj was jointly purchased by Kishan Chand and his three sons, namely, Gopal Krishna, Sarvesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, by registered sale deed dated 4th August, 1975. After purchase of the property in the year 1977 they filed an application purporting to be under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and new construction of the shop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR608]; (1991)IILLJ154All
S.K. Dhaon, J.1. In this and the companion Writ Petition Nos. 8214 of 1986,3294 of 1985,13015 of 1984 and 9948 of 1983 the employers feel aggrieved by the refusal of the State of Uttar Pradesh to accord them permission to close down either undertakings or units.2. In this petition the material averments of Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public limited company, are these. Amongst other businesses, the company has an establishment of Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Allahabad Unit). Each business run by the company is a separate establishment having a separate finance, management and control. The Allahabad unit has been suffering huge losses year after year. It has suffered losses from its very inception. In 1976-77 its loss was of Rs. 1.68 lacs, in 1977-78 the loss was of Rs. 49.98 lacs, in 1978-79 the loss was of Rs. 44.37 lacs, in 1979-80 the loss was Rs. 92.08 lacs, in 1980-81 the loss was of Rs 114.5 lacs, in 1981-82 the loss was...
Tag this Judgment!