Allahabad Court January 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Luttful Haque Vs. Collector (The Prescribed Authority, Under the Land ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All93
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer, rejectingthe application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the compensation awarded to him under Section 28A of th'e Land Acquisition Act, he has now approached this Court for redress seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23-7-1987 and a direction to the respondent No. 1 to redeter-mine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and perused the record.3. From the materials on record, it is apparent that a total area of 10 acres of land situate in villages Lakhanpur alias Abhian-pur, Rewara Paraspur and Ahamadpur Phulwaria were acquired in the proceedings initiated vide the notification dated 5-4-1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in continuation whereof the notification under Secti...
Paramhansanand Shiksha Mandir Ashram Vs. Vii Additional District Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All293
ORDER1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrikant, learned counsel representating the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Asserting themselves to be the owner-landlord of the house in dispute and the petitioner as their tenant therein, the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, hereinafter called the respondents-II set, instituted in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Deoria, Suit No. 29 of 1978, for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed house. It appears, the petitioner pleaded that its status in the disputed house was not that of a tenant; that the respondents-II set were not the owner-landlord of the house in question; and that the Court of Judge Small Causes lacked jurisdiction to try the suit as it involved the determination of question of title to the house in dispute.2. The plea of the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction was upheld and an order directing return of the plaint, under S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, was ...
Kumari Savitri Roy Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: I(1994)ACC418; 1994ACJ720; AIR1994All239
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order D/ - 27-8-1979 passed in Claims Case No. 66 of 1977 Km. Savitri Roy v. Railways Administration by Ad hoc Claims Commissioner (Rlys), Allahabad, dismissing the claim for compensation of Km. Savitri Roy.2. According to the admitted facts of the case, a collision took place between 103 UP Deluxe Express train and G.P.C. Special at Naini Railway Station on 10-10-77 at 0015 hours as a result of which S/Sri R.N. Roy and Nand Kumar were admittedly killed while S/Sri H.N. Bajpai, Sukhdeo Prasad and Madan Gopal admittedly sustained injuries. It is also admitted case of the parties that late Sri R.N. Roy, who was T.T.E. was on duty at the relevant time on 103 UP Deluxe Express Train which was involved in the accident. Kumari Savitri Roy (Since deceased) filed petition claiming herself to be unmarried sister and heir of late Sri R.N. Roy for grant of compensation u/S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act for the loss occasioned by his death. The...
Life Insurance Corporation and anr. Vs. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR610]; (1994)IILLJ1136All; (1994)2UPLBEC1041
1. This instant special appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 24, 1992 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition 7801 of 1990 (S/S).2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the special appeal are stated.Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, hereinafter called the respondent, preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging alleged oral termination of his service by the appellants on the ground that they have not done so in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent claimed that he is a workman as stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, that since June 12, 1989 the respondent had been working in the Life Insurance Corporation as a Clerk and he had been getting salary as such as a daily rated employee upto the month of June, 1990, that the respondent is getting salary from appellant No. 2, after getting applications from him. Some of the applications and vouchers had been attached as Annexures...
Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC410
Palok Basu, J.1. The appellant Ram Prasad, who was aged around 40 years at the trial, has been found guilty of having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, who was aged about 35 years. The charge against the appellant was that in the night between 5/6.12.1977 the appellant in furtherance of the common intention with his brother Ram Swarup committed the murder of Smt. Shanti Devi in his house situate in the town of Sumerpur, Police Station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant had no son through Smt. Shanti Devi but had only four daughters, out of whom only Manorama (the informant) was married. The appellant had about 40 bighas of agricultural land in Sumerpur and about 70 bighas in the nearby village Patara. Yet another 70 bighas in village Patara was jointly owned by the appellant Ram Prasad and his brother Ram Swarup, The appellant wanted to transfer some land to Virendra Singh, his nephew, i.e., son of Ram Swarup. The deceased Smt. Sh...
K.J. Diesels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT672(All)
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-11-1993 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to press for the deposit of Rs. 1,19,175.32 and further to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit of the adjudged amount of duty and not to recover the same.2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sidharth Singh who has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party. As agreed between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally otherwise it will unnecessarily delay the matter.3. The brief facts given rise to this writ petition are that aggrieved by an order of the Collector, Central Excise, petitioner filed an appeal alongwith a stay-cum-waiver application before the opposite party, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The stay-cum-waiver application ca...
Chetanswaroop Son of Sri B.L. Gandhi Vs. Collector, Jhansi District, J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All269
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner entered into an agreement in 1968 with the Government of Maharashtra for making construction of Bagheda Tonk Project in Taluka and District Bhandara (Maharashtra). For carrying out the work of construction, the petitioner hired Government machinery. In 1972 he abandoned the work. Under clause 3(b) of the agreement, the appropriate authority of Government of Maharashtra determined the following amount to be recovered from the petitioner:'1. Value of work done departmental Rs. 8785.772. Recoveries towards hire charge of Govt. Machineries. Rs. 391398.00Total recovery to be effected from the contractor. Rs. 400183.77'Thereafter a recovery certificate was issued by the officer of Maharashtra to the Collector, Jhansi (U. P.) for recovering the above amount as arrears of land revenue. It is against this certificate of recovery that this writ petition has been filed before this Court.2. Two counter affidavits, one by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Minor Irriga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›