Allahabad Court February 1990 Judgments
Road Flying Carrier and Another Vs. the General Electric Company of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All134
1. This is an appeal by the defendant-appellants against the order passed ex parte, issuing a mandatory injunction against it to deliver the custody of the goods entrusted to it for purpose of transport by the plaintiff. The main grievance of the appellants is that the order was passed ex parte without complying with the provisions of O. 39, R. 3, C.P.C., which are mandatory in nature.2. On a perusal of the order impugned herein, we find that although court below has tried to safeguard the interest of both the parties; but it has failed to record any reason as to why it became necessary to pass an ex parte injunction without serving notice on the respondent.3. Rule 3 of O. 39, C.P.C. lays down thatonly in case where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay it has no power to issue ex parte order of injunction. In that circumstance also the court has to record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeate...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Singh and ors. Vs. Ombiree and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC419
N.N. Mithal, J.1. The order challenged in this appeal was passed by the Court below on an application by the guardian for permission to transfer the property of a minor. 2. The appellants' grievance is that while disposing of this application the Court has neither recorded a finding that the minor was really suffering from heart ailment and required expensive treatment for it nor the Court has given necessary and complete directions as are required under Section 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.3. The relevant facts in brief are; that the father of the minor having died nearly four years ago the mother and the minor are both residing with their father and maternal grand-father in an adjoining district. During these four years, the appellant No. 1 who is the real uncle of the minor, is in possession of the property and there is no evidence on record even to suggest that any profit from the income pertaining to the minors' share has been paid either to his mother or to the minor. ...
Tag this Judgment!ElgIn Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR326(All)
Amarendra Nath Varma, J.1. These two petitions raise the perennial question, viz., whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had any reason to believe that the income of the petitioner in the years relevant for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 had escaped assessment.2. The impugned notices have been issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range II, Kanpur, in the purported exercise of his powers under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, respectively, on November 20, 1986 and September 15, 1986 for the two assessment years in question, namely, 1981-82 and 1982-83. They are assailed on the ground that there was no material which could legitimately form the basis for the belief that any income of the petitioner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the petitioner's failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. In order to examine the correctness of this contention, this court di...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Another Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All189; 1991CriLJ1838
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J. 1.Hon'ble single Judge was doubtful as to whether Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply to Family Courts constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and as such, the case was referred to a Division Bench fordecision, as this question might come often before this Court.2. Criminal Misc. (Transfer) Application No. 77 of 1989 has been filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transferring the case No. 28 of 1988 under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. from Family Court, Jhansi to some other Family Court. Civil Misc. (Transfer) Application No. 78 of 1989 has been filed under Section 22 read with Section 23(3), C.P.C. for transferring Original Suit No. 124 of 1988 from Family Court, Jhansi to the corresponding court in Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Civil Misc. (Transfer) Application No. 43 of 1989 has been filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transferring the case No. 64 of 1988 from Family Court, Jhansi to some ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lakhpati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC181; 1990ACJ729; [1993]76CompCas827(All)
1. In this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurance company has raised a short point. It is urged that the liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 50,000 according to the contract of insurance but the Tribunal has erred in fixing its liability to the extent of Rs. 65,000.2. There is also a cross-objection filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as to the respective aspects raised by them and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that so far as the submission of the appellant is concerned, there is merit in the same. We have seen the policy which contains a specific column regarding the limits of liability. It has two columns, first of which is in the following terms :' Limit of the amount of the company's liability under Section II-1(i) in respect of any one accident.'3. As agafnst this column, the following words are mentioned :' Such...
Tag this Judgment!Bijili Mazdoor Sangh and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ272All; (1990)1UPLBEC299
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Government of U.P. in exercise of power under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act), referred the two questions to the Industrial Tribunal-1 at Allahabad, relating to the legality and propriety of termination of services of the two workmen, named therein and about regularisation and confirmation of services of these two workmen. The order of reference as translated into English is quoted below:-(1) Whether termination of services of the two workmen, Mohammad Jamil, son of Shahamatullah and Nand Lal, son of Ram Kishan, of Civil Contraction department with effect from 1.2.1979, is proper/legal?If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?(2) If the aforesaid decision is given in favour of the workmen then whether the employer should have declared these workmen as confirmed/permanent ?2. The Industrial Tribunal in pursuance of aforesaid reference registered the case as Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980 and vide its Award, d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. S.B. Agnihotri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR677]; (1991)IILLJ603All
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Sri S.B. Agnihotri, respondent No. 1 was Chief Goods Supervisor, Kanpur Central Goods Shed. He moved an application before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment in lieu of working on statutory weekly rest during the period from June, 1975 to June, 1977 and also compensation in lieu of working on the rest days. The Labour Court by its award dated August 11, 1986 has allowed the claim of the workman. The Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the workman worked on 82 Sundays and remaining 4 Sundays were spent in Journey after attending the Court duty. It was further held that the workman has also worked on the rest days. Relying on Sec. 67 of the Railways Act and the Employment Rules the Labour Court has held that the workman is entitled to sum of Rs. 6,960/-As this payment ought to have be...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Ziley Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: 1990ACJ742
N.N. Mithal and M.L. Bhat, JJ. 1. This is a claimants' appeal against the award dated 25.7.1980 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District Judge), Ghaziabad dismissing the petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not negligent while driving the same.2. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased, Mala Singh, who is said to have been travelling in the bus belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. UTG 4536 on 1.1.1979, which was going from Meerut to Delhi. On way after crossing Modinagar town when the bus was tiying to negotiate a curve to come to the bridge on the canal, it suddenly turned towards left and fell down into a khud on that side causing serious injuries to Mala Singh on account of which he died at a later stage. A claim for Rs. 52,500/- has been put forward in a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The defence in the claim was that the driver was not guilty of rash and neglige...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Ziley Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC153
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is a claimants' appeal against the award dated 25.7.1980 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I additional District Judge), Ghaziabad dismissing the petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not negligent while driving the same.2. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased, Mala Singh, who is said to have been travelling in the bus belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. U.T.G.4536 on 1.1.1978, which was going from Meerut to Delhi. On way after crossing Modinagar town when the bus was trying to negotiate a curve to come to the bridge on the canal, it suddenly turned towards left and fell down into a Khud on that side causing serious injuries to Mala Singh on account of which he died at a later stage. claim for Rs. 52,500/- has put forward in a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The defence in the claim was that the driver was not guilty of rash and negligent driving and the accid...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 1992(43)LC335(Allahabad)
A.N. Varma, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sheibhan Srivastava learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This petition is directed against a show cause notice. Several objections were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner against the notice. It was urged inter alia that after two notices similar to the one which has now been issued the classification list submitted by the petitioner had been duly approved. The present notice is hence incompetent in law. We reserve our opinion on this contention for the present in view of the fact that it will be open to the petitioner to take all such pleas against the notice as may be available to it in law in reply to the show cause notice. This, therefore is not a fit case for interference at present.3. The petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »