Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC437
..... in mahabir jute mills ltd., gorakhpur v. shibban lal saxena, (1976) 1 scr 168 : air 1975 sc 2057 ; maharashtra state board of secondary and higher secondary education v. k.s. gandhi, (1991) 2 scc 716 : 1991 air scw 879 ; c.b. gautam v. union of india, 1993 (1) scr 78 on which shri tarkunde relied in support of his proposition that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC809
1. This case is an eye-opener as to what extent a litigantcan have the audacity to misuse and abuse the process of the Court. One of thepetitioners, whose appointment itself stood cancelled by operation of law isnot only in service but had succeeded In joining a college of his choice,though the vacancy of his subject had never occurred therein, only by playingfraud upon the Court.2. Petitioners stood selected for appointment as Lecturer in EducationDepartment by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Commission') pursuant to advertisement No. 29. Petition hasbeen filed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their claim forinter changing the Colleges where their names have been recommended by theDirector of Education (Higher Education) (hereinafter referred to as the'Director').3. Consequent to the selections made by the Commission on the basis ofAdvertisement No. 29 issued by it for filling up the posts of Lecturers in theColleges in var...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2477; 2005(2)ESC1431
..... 64; s.t. muthusami v. k. natarajan, air 1988 sc 616; a.k.m. hassan uzzaman v. union of india, (1982) 2 scc 218; dhartipakar madanlal agarwal v. sri rajiv gandhi, air 1987 sc 1577; and gujarat university v. n.u. rajguru, air 1988 sc 66. in all the aforesaid cases, it has categorically been held that the high court should .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(All.)489
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2.1. The assessee has listed as many as 11 grounds of appeal in the original memorandum of appeal, which were later on regrouped as per the direction of the Bench. The grounds originally taken and as regrouped read as under : (i) That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions/disallowances while determining undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 : (a) Rs. 1,28,856 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged unaccounted sales outside the books of account vide para 11 of the Order. (b) Rs. 51,50,000 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged income from undisclosed sources vide para 78.2 of the Order. (c) Rs. 44,000 addition in financial year 1994-95 for alleged income from undisclosed sources as the unex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)ESC2298
..... and 3 are the students who have been admitted in the study centre.3. it is the contention of the study centre that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the mahatma jyotiba phule rohilkhand university, bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the 'rohilkhand university') inviting applications from prospective institutions/societies/trusts to start study centres for certificate/diploma/degree courses in engineering .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC101
..... commissioner, new delhi and ors., : [1978]2scr272 2. state govt. houseless harijan employees' association v. state of karnataka and ors., (2001) 1 scc 610.3. pavanendra narayan verma v. sanjay gandhi pgi of medical sciences and anr., : (2002)illj690sc .4. union of india and anr. v. gtc industries ltd., bombay, : 2003(153)elt244(sc) .8. sri c.b.yadav, learned chief .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1441
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The dispute in the present writ petition pertaining to the claim of promotion of the petitioner which has not been considered by the Respondent - Joint Director of Education and the Respondent No. 5 -Ram Chandra Gupta has been extended the benefit of promotion even though he is junior to the petitioner as alleged in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are that the impugned order has been passed without deciding the claim of seniority of the petitioner over and above the Respondent No. 5 without considering the claim of promotion of the petitioner and passing the impugned order of promotion in favour of the respondent No. 5 in violation of the principles of natural justice. This challenge has been resisted by the Respondent No. 5 on the ground that the challenge to the question of seniority is highly belated' and cannot be permitted to be raised in collateral proceeding pertaining to claims of promotion. It has further been urged on behalf of the respondent No. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC992
..... its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing with retrospective, curative or neutralising effect the conditions on which such decision is based. as pointed out by ray, cj. in indira nehru gandhi v. raj narain, the rendering ineffective of judgments or orders of competent courts and tribunals by changing their basis by legislative enactment is a well-known pattern of all validating ..... be said that the right under article 29(2) are not effected when an institution which is receiving aid is declared as minority. the apex court in : [1975]3scr810 the gandhi faiz-e-am college v. university of agra and anr., has held that abridgement of the constitutional right is as obnoxious as annihilation. even if the right of citizens under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1774
..... . the proposition that in such cases a post decisional hearing would satisfy the principles of natural justice was accepted by the hon'ble apex court in the case of maneka gandhi v. union of india, : [1978]2scr621 .15. in almost identical facts and circumstances, two learned single judges of our court in the case of muzeeb v. deputy director of consolidation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR440]
Shishir Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award-dated 30.5.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 published on 25.2.1999, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.2. The facts arising out of the writ petition is that the petitioner is Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its basic object is to undertake various training and project for the betterment of the agriculture. It employs persons from time to time in respect of particular project. It is further respectfully submitted that the University is not an industry as defined in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on daily wage basis by the University on 1.7.1980 for a particular period and was working even today on daily wage basis. From 1.9.1980 to 6.8.1993 respondent No. 2 worked as Lab. Assistant/attendant on daily wage basis which is a class-IV post. When the serv...
Tag this Judgment!