Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-07-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3536
d.k. seth, j.1. mr. h. s. shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18th may, 1999 passed by the learned additional district judge, second court, muzaffarnagar in misc. civil appeal no. 83 of 1998 on the ground that since both the courts below have come to a finding that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish a prime facie case and had refused injunction, therefore, no bank guarantee could be directed to be furnished by the petitioner-defendant. in such circumstances, according to him, there was no application by the plaintiffs for any such order to be passed in the proceedings. therefore, according to him, the order directing furnishing of the bank guarantee by the defendant and affirmed by the appellate court, cannot be sustained. 2. i have heard the learned counsel at length.3. so far as the order refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, the same has not been challenged. it is apparent that both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have not been able to make out a prima facie case. at the same time, it has come to a finding that the matter is pending decision finally. it has also been recorded a finding of fact there are every likelihood of waste or damage of the fund by reason of operation of the bank accounts by the defendants since there was no injunction operating. the question as to theright of the parties to operate the bank account is subject to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-29-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3537; (1999)3UPLBEC2300
d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner was promoted to the post of lecturer in sociology against a regular vacancy along with one sri sital deen singh promoted to the post of lecturer in economics. tills promotion was given by a resolution dated 31st october, 1976. but the district inspector of schools, ghazipur, dfd not approve the same on the ground that one of the post was to be filled up by promotion and the other by direct recruitment. therefore, the school authority should send a revisedproposal. this communication was sent to the school authority on 17th january. 1977. admittedly, the school authority did not send any fresh proposal. however, admittedly, the petitioner continued to take classes in intermediate college and perform the duties of a lecturer. the petitioner did not come to this court and did not assert his right. the situation shows that the petitioner was more conscious about his duties but less conscious about his rights. he concentrated on teaching without raising any objection to the injustice perpetrated on him and the inaction of the school authority as well as the respondents. the school authority also did not take any steps.2. from the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that there were 8 posts of lecturers, out of which. 3 were filled up by direct recruitment and 2 were filled up by promotion, in respect of promotion to the post of lecturer in economics, there was a dispute of seniority between the said sital deen singh and one sri ashok singh. which .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-02-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3543
a.k. yog, j.1. petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus for an innocuous relief to the effect that this case, which is pending before respondent no. 2 may be decided.2. who can say, a case filed before a court is not to be decided? the million dollar question is in what manner' and 'how' the said object is to be achieved within the prevailing system and set-up. efficiency of a system/organisation, anywhere in the world, depends upon the people involved in the system. even the finest system will fall if the people manning do not possess required talent and have the requisite desire to achieve an object or goal.3. above all need of proper environment (which can be achieved only by nurturing requisite culture) cannot be undermined.4. order sheet of the present case maintained in court below shows that case was adjourned on several occasions due to advocates' strike.5. how the bar explains its role when it has itself generously attributed to the delay?6. due to advocate strikes, court working is paralysed. general apathy towards strike encourages a small number of bar to resort to it. courts work is paralysed not because of strike but because of passive attitude and apathy of the bar in general.7. have we ever achieved the desired object out of strike? if answer is no, then why should one take recourse to it.?8. after all-who is the sufferer? in longer run none other than themembers of legal profession alone suffer. if bar starts believing in real productive .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-28-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3563; (1999)3UPLBEC2304
a.k. yog, j.1. heard sri prakash padia, senior advocate, assisted by sri bhim singh advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri. a. upadhya, learned standing counsel for all the respondents.2. learned counsel for the parties are agreed that petition may be decided finally at the admission stage as contemplated under rules of the court.3. petitioner claims a writ of mandamus, unfortunately for a purpose, not considering while article 226 was incorporated in theconstitution. sole purpose of the present petition is that authority be awakened from slumber and required to pass appropriate orders on the representation, first one, according to the petitioner, was filed as early as in december, 1998.4. it is, however, interesting to note that when petition was filed and taken up for admission, on 22nd september, 1999, learned single judge hearing the case was pleased to grant time to the learned standing counsel for obtaining instruction.5. learned standing counsel, after perusing the file of the case maintained in the office of chief standing counsel, states that no instructions have been received.6. petitioner contends that he was working as assistant development officer (isb). according to him, he was suspended vide order dated 27.12.1997. suspension order (annexure-3 to the petition) was quashed by the high court on the ground that authority purported to have issued an order of suspension at that stage was not competent. this court has left it open to the competent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-29-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3583
r. h. zaidi, j. 1. by means of this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 16.8.75 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of group 2 of subordinate agriculture services, the order dated 17.3.82 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the order dated 23.3.91 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority.2. the relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was on 12.10.57 that the petitioner was appointed as group 3 employee in subordinate agriculture services u.p. and his services were confirmed on 1.1.1974. it was on 2.12.1974 that the petitioner was promoted to a group 2 post in the said department. it was on 16.8.75 that the petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, on 8.10.76, a charge-sheet was served upon him under the signature of the project officer, gonda, of which the petitioner submitted his reply, but subsequently on 14.1.1977 aforesaid charge-sheet was cancelled by respondent no. 2. a fresh charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 13.4.1977 and respondent no. 3 was appointed as inquiry officer. on receipt of the charge-sheet, petitioner applied to supply him certain documents, as according to him, without said documents it was not possible to file effective reply of the charge-sheet. thereafter on 28.8.78, a supplementary charge-sheet was also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-26-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1464a
p.k. jain, j. 1. learned counsel for the' petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 have been heard at length. the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. short question raised in this petition is whether without the decree-holder moving an application, under order xxi. rule 97 (1) c.p.c., objections raised by the third party resisting the execution of the decree, can be heard or not.3. brief facts of the case are that respondents 3 and 4, sita ram and ram das, had obtained a decree for possession in respect of certain immovable properties against respondents 5 to 8. while the decree was put in execution, the petitioners alleged to be in possession of the part of the land under the decree. the petitioners were not party to the suit and there was no decree against them. the decree-holders moved an application under order xxi, rule 35 c.p.c, before the executing court for getting the possession delivered with the aid of the police. the petitioners filed objections under order xxi, rule 97, c.p.c. the said objections werenot entertained by the executing court on the ground that the third party has no right to make an application resisting the execution of the decree and the third party can file a suit. on revision being filed against the order of the executing court, the revisional court dismissed the same on the ground that unless the decree-holder moves an application under order xxi, rule 97 c.p.c., for delivery of possession after removal .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-09-1999
Reported in : 97CompCas943(All)
a.k. banerji, j. 1. the leasehold industrial land including standing trees and pucca factory building (excluding the temple area) and the old factory's steel structures of the company namely, m/s. triveni metal and tubes limited (in liquidation) were ordered to be sold by calling for tenders jointly by the industrial investment bank of india (iibi) as well as the official liquidator. after advertising the same in four newspapers, only five tenders were received within time on october 30, 1998, the date fixed by the court. one tender was submitted on the same day but beyond time. on the application of the said party, the court permitted the tender to be taken on record and be considered along with the other tenders. the aforesaid six tenders were opened in the presence of learned counsel appearing for the iibi, ifci and the picup as well as the official liquidator and the representatives of the parties who had submitted their tenders. out of the six tenders received, the highest offer was of rs. 1.12 crores of m/s. umrao steels, kanpur. however, the parties were given an opportunity to increase their offers by bidding amongst themselves. m/s. umrao steels increased their offer to rs. 1.20 crores, which was accepted as the highest bid. the minutes were recorded separately by the court. an order was also passed accepting the offer that the party which had given the highest offer shall deposit 25 per cent. of the consideration within one month and the balance amount in three .....Tag this Judgment!