Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-29-1992
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ1All; (1993)1UPLBEC251
ORDERM.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the State. In terms of Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations relating to pension, his pension has been reduced to 50 per cent. The petitioner had challenged the impugned order of reduction in pension as also the snow cause notice issued to him for the proposed reduction, before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed his claim petition by its order dated August 31, 1982. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated April 4, 1980 as also the judgment of respondent No. 1 dated August 31, 1982, in this writ petition.2. Clause (b) of Article 470 of the Regulations reads as under:-'If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.'3. The authorities have invoked the aforesaid provision of the Regulations to effect reduction in the petitioner's pension. It is advantageous to give brief resume of the facts w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-17-1992
Reported in : 1993(63)ELT626(All)
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 13th February, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The order dated 13-2-1979 had been served on the petitioner on 15-2-1979. The appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. The period of limitation for filing the appeal prescribed under Section 35 of the Act as it stood at that time was only three months. The aforesaid appeal, which had been filed on 28-5-1979 was therefore barred by eleven days on the date of its filing. In this view of the matter, the petitioner prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal itself.2. The Appellate Authority rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-25-1992
Reported in : 1994CriLJ720
Palok Basu, J.1. In all the aforesaid four cases one of the points argued was that at the time of arrest of the petitioner in each case the ground of arrest and full particulars regarding it were not disclosed and, therefore, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India stood violated. The other question in all the four cases was whether the petitioner was detained for a period more than necessary and in some beyond 24 hours and, therefore, Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India was violated. On these two grounds it was argued that the continued detention of the petitioner in each case was illegal. Some questions of fact were raised relating to each case which shall be dealt with at the relevant place. It may be noted here that in all the cases counter affidavits by the relevant opposite parties have been filed to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, as prayed by learned Counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being finally disposed at the ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-25-1992
Reported in : AIR1992All254
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dispose of this appeal finally at the admission stage.2. The present appeal filed under 0.43, R. 1(r) of Civil P.C., is directed against an order dated 1-2-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Suit No. 839 of 1990, whereby application made under O.39, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit land, has been dismissed.3. The appellant-plaintiff brought an action against the respondents seeking a relief for declaration that sale deeds executed by Hero Jaswant Das (Respondent No. 1) in favour of respondents are not binding on her. An application under O.39, Rr. 1 &2, C.P.C. was also made for restraining the respondents from interferring with her possession of the suit land.4. In short the case of the appellant-plaintiff is as under:--The appellant-plaintiff is owner of plot Nos. 461, 360, 361, 381, 367, 368, 369, 374 & 376 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-03-1992
Reported in : AIR1993All176
ORDER1. These are four connected petitions directed against judgment and order dated 8-9-1983, whereby eviction of the tenant from the premises known as Minerva Castle previously known as Jura House situate at Kulri, Mussoorie and release thereof in favour of the respondent-landlord under S.21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act'), was directed by the Prescribed Authority and also against the appellate order dated 10-2-1989, dismissing the tenant's appeal and affirming the judgment and order contemplating eviction and release passed by the Prescribed Authority, The petition filed by Sri Mahendra Pal Singh, being writ petition No. 2791 of 1989, shall be treated as the leading case in the set of the present petitions.2. The matrix of the facts, in so far as it may be found relevant for the purposes of discussion of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is set out as below.Late Sri K.R. Bahugu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-01-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)20; 1994CriLJ1491
ORDERJ.P. Semwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-6-1991, passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application (88 kha) of the accused-applicant,2. The accused applicant and one Raju moved an application 88 kha, on 12-6-1991, before the lower court, praying that their trial be separated from other co-accused and be transferred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. It was also prayed that suitable orders be passed for holding an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the said court itself as contemplated under Section 5, read with Section 20/32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Affidavit and papers in support of proof in regard to age, were also filed. Authorities were cited on behalf of the revisionist before the lower court. The lower court considered the authorities cited on behalf of the revisionist and came to the conclusion that there was no question of separating the case or holding an enquiry, because when in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-22-1992
Reported in : AIR1993All143
1. A very ugly situation faces the Court, the High Court, in its original jurisdiction in these cases. Many questions have been flung at the Court. The Court must answer them as they are all questions which this Court or any other Court will have to face some time or the other in the conduct of original proceedings.2. There are two matters before the Court. Both arise out of and relate to the estate of one Mahendra Pratap Singh. By testamentary case No. 13 of 1986 (subsequently converted into testamentary suit No. 2 of 1988) Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother of the deceased, applied to the High Court for letters of administration on September 18, 1986. Notices were issued on the petition and an order for citation was also made. A year anda quarter later a petition was filed by Padma Kumari seeking letters of administration on the same estate of the deceased. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh has sought letters of administration upon a will dated November 25, 1985. Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-17-1992
Reported in : AIR1992All298; (1992)2UPLBEC1435
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. S. K. Saraf and has prayed that the said committee should be restrained from going into the matter of use of unfair means by the petitioner in the spring semester of B.E. II Year (Electrical) of 1986 and further relief, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.2. It is useful to detail out the facts relevant for the purposes of decision of this writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time was a student of B.E. (Elec.) III Year of the University of Roorkee. Her case is that she has a brilliant academic record. She is said to have passed I Year examination and the Autumn Semester examination of II Year. After the declaration of the result of B.E. (Elec.) II Year Spring Semester some students of B.E. (Elec.) III Year out of heart burning and jealousy are said to have submitted a representation to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering allegi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-10-1992
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1220
Palok Basu, J.1. In spite of several decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and following them, by this Court and perhaps all other High Courts, counsel are emboldened to argue that the given case may not fall within the ambit of 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' and shall be confined to the 'law and order' problem. In the instant case, however, since the petitioner Wazir Yadav claims himself to be a 28 years aged man, being a student of Class M.Ed. in Nanak Chand Angle Sankrit College, Meerut and that he is a sportsman and a renowned social worker and further claims to be a student leader, his actions as reported through grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to be too serious to countenance the aforesaid argument.2. It appears that on 26-2-92 the District Magistrate has passed an order of detention under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (N.S.A.). In passing the said order, the District Magistrate felt satisfied that since it was necessary to prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-27-1992
Reported in : AIR1992All351; (1992)2UPLBEC1074
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. The petitioner was elected Chairman of Town Area, Oran, District Banda in 1988. By means of thepresent petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Banda dated 10-1-1992 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) under Section 7-A of the U.P. Town Area Act removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman, as well as the order of the State Government dated 21-1-1992 (Annexure-10) to the writ petition) confirming the aforesaid order, and also the order Of the District Magistrate dated 24-1-1992 (Annexure-1) appointing a prescribed authority.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and 1 have heard Shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yatindra Singh and Standing Counsel for the respondents, and I am disposing of this writ petition finally.3. Section 7-A(l) of the U. P. Town Areas Act states as follows :--'7-A. Removal of a Chairman or a member of a committere.-- (1) The prescribed authority, or, where...
Tag this Judgment!