Allahabad Court July 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.
Abhay Kumar Vs. Chairman, Samyukt Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR178]; (1995)IILLJ102All; (1994)3UPLBEC1954
S.S. Sodhi, J.1. A classic instance of where discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner is provided here.2. It was about six years ago on October 29, 1988, that the petitioner joined service of the respondent Bank and after working for just two days left on November 1, 1988 without seeking or obtaining leave. About six weeks later, on December 12, 1988, he is said to have sent an application for leave. There is no material on record to show that any leave was ever sanctioned. Later, on January 17, 1989, he submitted his resignation from service but on April 5, 1989 he is said to have written another letter withdrawing it. It appears that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, but it is not clear from the record when it was accepted, as there is mention in one document that it had been accepted on December 12, 1991 while in the other his name is stated to have been struck off the rolls on November 26, 1991. Be that as it...
Ansara Begum and anr. Vs. Harnam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC197; 1995ACJ220
S.C. Mohapatra and Abdur Rahim, JJ.1. These three appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are in respect of death of two persons in an accident while going on a motor cycle. Since the three appeals arise out of common judgment and involve same question they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. On 19.4.1977 Nizam Ali, an employee of a fertilizer store, was going on his motor cycle with Ahmad Husain. Nizam Ali was driving the motor cycle and Ahmad Husain was pillion rider. Motor cycle collided with truck No. UTF 1359 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of this accident Ahmad Husain, the pillion rider, died on the spot sustaining fatal injuries. Nizam Ali who also sustained severe injuries was removed to hospital for treatment where he died later.3. Asserting that accident was on account of negligence in driving of the truck, widow of Nizam Ali and their minor daughter aged two years fi...
Ansara Begum and ors. Vs. Ageela Khatoon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC536
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These three appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are in respect of death of two persons in an accident while going on a motor cycle. Since the three appeals arise out of common judgment and involve same question they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. On 19.4.1977 Nizam Ali, an employee of a Fertilizer store was going on his motor cycle with Ahmad Husain. Nizam Ali was driving the motor cycle and Ahmad Husain was pillion rider. Motorcycle collided with truck No. U.T.F. 1359 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of this accident Ahmad Husain the pillion rider died on the spot sustaining fatal injuries. Nizam Ali who also sustained severe injuries was removed to hospital for treatment where he died later.3. Asserting that accident was on account of negligence in driving of the truck, widow of Nizam Ali and their minor daughter aged two years filed an application...
Arvind Kumar Vs. Deputy Director (Admn.) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Pa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ750All
R.A. SHARMA , J. 1. The appellant was appointed as typist, vide order dated May 4, 1991 for a fixed term of thirty days, for clearing of the excess work in the office of Mandi Samiti. Bareilly. As the excess work in the office of Mandi Samiti could not be completed the term of the appellant was thereafter extended from lime to lime. His services were ultimately terminated vide order dated September 4, 1992, on completion of excess work for which he. was appointed. Against this order he filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed with the observation that if any vacancy of clerk arises for which the appellant is qualified, he shall be given preference. It is against this judgment of learned Single Judge that this appeal has been filed.2. The Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is two- fold; firstly as the appellant has completed more than 240 days in the service of the respondent, his services could not have been terminated in view of Section 25F of...
Vijay and ors. Vs. Lakhmi Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ755
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These three appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arise out of a common award under Section 110-B of the Act, one by the claimants, another by the owner of the vehicle and third by the insurer. Since the parties are the same and the appeals arise out of the common order and most of the questions are same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. Owner's appeal has been dismissed for default. Mr. B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel, stated that the three appeals were being listed periodically for hearing. On the date the appeal of the owner was dismissed for default, he had inadvertently missed the list, he could not appear when appeal was called for hearing. The other two appeals, which were to be heard together with this appeal, however, have not been disposed of on that day. In such circumstances it is submitted that owner should not suffer on account of the mistake of the lawyer on who...
Vijay and ors. Vs. Laxmi Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC165
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These three appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) arise out of a common award under Section 110-B of the Act, one by claimants, another by the owner of the vehicle and third by the Insurer. Since the parties are the same and the appeals arise of the common Order and most of the questions are same, they are heard together and disposed by this judgment.2. Owner's appeal has been dismissed for default. Mr. B.D. Mandhyan, Advocate, learned Counsel stated that the three appeals were being listed periodically for hearing. On the date the appeal of the owner was dismissed for default, he had inadvertently missed the list, he could not appear when the appeal was called for hearing. Other two appeals which were to be heard together with this appeal, however, has not been disposed of on that day. In such circumstances it is submitted that owner should not suffer on account of the mistake of the lawyer on whom he has...
Laxmi Chand Vs. Smt. Vijay and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC529
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These three appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise out of a common award under Section 110-B of the Act, one by claimants, another by the owner of the vehicle and third by the Insurer. Since the parties are the same and the appeals arise out of the common order and most of the questions are same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. Owner's appeal has been dismissed for default. Mr. B.D. Madhayan, Advocate, learned Counsel stated that the three appeals were being listed periodically for hearing. On the date the appeal of the owner was dismissed for default, he had inadvertently missed the list, he could not appear when appeal was called for hearing. Other two appeals, which are to be heard together with this appeal, however, have not been disposed of on that day. In such circumstances it is submitted that owner should not suffer on account of the mistake of the lawyer on wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›