Allahabad Court November 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1114
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. These five appeals under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been filed by the insurer. Since all the appeals relate to the same accident and arise out of common judgment, all the appeals are heard together with consent of parties. In each appeal claimants have filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, which have been considered and heard along with the appeals together.2. On 28.6.1983 passenger bus USC 5434 was proceeding on Meerut-Hapur route. At about 9.30 a.m. the bus went out of the road and dashed against a roadside neem tree near village Phaphunda. In respect of three appeals, claims were made by dependants on account of death of three passengers and the other two relate to claims by two injured passengers.3. Owner contested applications denying negligence in driving of the vehicle. Insurer contested the claim on various grounds and stated that in case it is held liable the same i...
Ajai Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2801
S.K. Phaujdar, JJ.1. The petitioner, Ajay Rai, has prayed for quashing an FIR dated 10-5-1994 lodged against him by the Senior Inspector of Police, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition.2. As per Annexure 2 to the writ petition, a case Crime No. 118 of 1994 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short, as the Act) was initiated by FIR No. 79 dated 10-5-1994. Allegations were made therein against the present petitioner and one Umesh Yadav stating that the petitioner had formed a gang with others and were engaged in unlawful activities and in the commission of offences under Chapters 16 and 22 of the I.P.C. and were terrorising people being armed with unlawful weapons. People did not have the courage to speak against them. The FIR gave the details of 3 cases ranging from 1989 to 1994 for offences of criminal intimidation, murder, and attempted murder committed by the petitioner.3. In the petition not only the involvement of...
Metitec India Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR624]; (1996)ILLJ23All; (1995)1UPLBEC305
Palok Basu, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Order No. 7012-17 (Shra As)/36-Shram (1) Swatah Sandarbh 2(27)/92 (Ghaziabad) dated September 5, 1992 passed by the State of U.P. making the following reference for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (V) Meerut:-Matter of dispute 'Whether the act of the employers concerning 241 workers named in the annexure in declaring lock-out from May 10, 1992 was unjustified and/or illegal? If yes, men to what relief or order are those workers entitled to and with what other benefits?2. It may be mentioned here that receiving the aforesaid Reference the Industrial Tribunal concerned registered it as Adjudication case No. 138 of 1992 and commenced proceedings in which the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 namely, All India Engineering & General Mazdoor Union were shown as parties. On receiving notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the form of the present...
U.P.S.T. Corporation Officers Association Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR726]; (1996)ILLJ37All; (1995)1UPLBEC335
S.H.A. Raza, J.To bring the case within the sweep of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India it was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the posts for filling up the vacancies for the Headquarter Staff as well as Manufacturing Unit are advertised jointly. The process of the selection is also similar. Appointments are made by the same authority. The appointment orders indicate that the posts are transferable from manufacturing unit to the headquarter and vice versa. Hence the employees of manufacturing units are entitled for the same emoluments which the headquarter staff gets.2. The contention of the respondents is that the persons working in the manufacturing unit and in the headquarter are of different cadres. The posts are not transferable, but it was considered that often transfers from one post to another are made by the authorities concerned.3. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982-I-LLJ- 344)(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated:-...
Bhajan Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ460
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. The Addl. Sessions Judge. Chamoli (Garhwal) vide his judgment and order dated 27-8-1979 passed in S. T. No. 4 of 1976, convicted the accused Bhajan Lal under Section 363, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo three years' R. I. He convicted Lungari Das also under Section 363, I.P.C, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine one years' R. I. was provided.2. The prosecution case started on the basis of a criptic FIR lodged by Smt. Gulabi Devi (not examined) at the Police Station, Karanprayag, Chamoli (Garhwal) on 17-3-75 (Ex. ka-4) that her daughter Km. Meena/Veena Devi had been kidnapped by the accused, Bhajan Lai and his father Lungari Das on 14-3-1975. Her father is lying ill and brother is not present in the house.3. On the basis of the report the investigation started and the girl was recovered on 20-3-1975. She was medically examined. The doctor opined that she was 17-19 years of age...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Naresh Pal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ591
S.C. Mohapatra and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the owner of a bus which is a public sector undertaking under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award in respect of injury to the body and property of the claimant.2. On 13.12.1985 claimant drove his tractor with trolley to Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Sheikhupur, Budaun. Next day in the early morning at about 6 a.m. he was returning from the sugar mill back home. When he reached near Dharam Kanta of village Nabada a bus bearing registration No. UTI2889 of the appellant collided head-on with the tractor as a result of which the tractor was damaged and various injuries were caused to the body of the claimant who was shifted to District Hospital, Budaun. Thereafter, he was treated in S.N. Medical College, Agra, for about six months. As a result of the injury, leg of the claimant was shortened by 11/4' and the right knee became stiff for which he is not able to move the same. This permanent disability would contin...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Autar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ931
S.R. Singh, J.1. Subject-matter of impugnment in the instant appeal is the award dated 31.1.1987 rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 23 of 1986, Ram Autar v. Ram Prakash whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,400/-together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent with effect from 6.5.1986, which is the date on which the claim petition was filed, till the date of actual payment of the compensation to the claimants with a further direction that the entire amount of compensation would be payable by the appellant insurance company.2. For sensitive appreciation of the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts may be delineated. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Ashok Kumar who, as held by the Tribunal, had got concussed in the accident which occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, i.e., truck No. UPC 3108 being driven on the fateful day by Pappu, respondent No. 4, who, as furthe...
Ashok Kumar Sood Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(All)269; [1995]216ITR193(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the rules of the court, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission after the exchange of affidavits.2. The petitioner seeks the quashing of ordef dated May 12, 1993, annexure-4 to the writ petition by virtue of which respondent No. 1 has rejected the explanation given by the petitioner and applied the formula of Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre for fixing the price of the property of the petitioner.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with one Sri Sarv Kanwal Jit Singh, respondent No. 3, for purchasing a residential plot No. 209, measuring an area of 450 sq. metres. The total consideration as agreed between the parties for the said property was Rs. 2,700,000 which comes to Rs. 4,600 per sq. metre. In pursuance of the said agre...
Ram Swaroop Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1211
V.P. Goel, J.1. Owner of motor vehicle is appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. The same having been condoned by the impugned order, appeal has been filed. Proceeding is yet pending adjudication to consider the question of direction to pay compensation. No appeal lies against the order allowing the application for condonation of delay under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable....
Arvind Lal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR487(All)
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 on March 7, 1989.3. The petitioner's case is that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts relating to the assessment year inasmuch as there is no information relating to escaped income. Hence, the said notice is liable to be set aside, It is further contended that the notice shows change of opinion and that is for making a fishing inquiry.4. The respondent in the counter-affidavit has disclosed the reasons. In paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the case was reopened after making due inquiries through the Inspectors of Income-tax and their report dated September 12, 1988. Reliance has also been placed on annexures CA-1 to CA-5 for all the years in question.5. The first ground of attack by learned counsel for the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »