Allahabad Court August 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR274]; (1996)ILLJ31All
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent No. 2, the Labour Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the exparte award dated September 25, 1981 and also by the order of the Labor Court dated September 11, 1981 whereunder it had ordered to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner in the adjudication case, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the aforesaid orders.2. It is significant to note that the petitioner has not sought for the quashing of the order dated April 27, 1982 whereunder the application riled by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award dated September 25, 1981 had been rejected.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that on the basis of a reference made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court gave an award accepting the claim of the workman and holding that he was entitled t...
The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs. Regional Labour Commiss ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ852All
S.R. Singh and G.S.N. Tripathi, JJ.1. The petition is directed against the order dated April 9, 1986 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed on the application filed by the respondent Ram Nath under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short the Act). It may be noticed that Section 7 provides for determination of the amount of gratuity. According to Section 4 of the Act, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on termination of his employment if he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years:(a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement Sub-sec...
infant Milk Food Factory Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ1220All
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court No. 1 dated September 26, 1979 holding that the petitioner employer had acted illegally in discharging the driver, respondent No. 3, with effect from May 22, 1973 and directing his reinstatement with full back wages, the petitioner employer has approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the impugned award.2. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that the respondent No. 3 who was employed as a driver for driving the staff bus of the petitioner, had dashed the bus with a Government roadways bus resulting in damage to the bus whereafter he was charge sheeted and asked to explain as to why disciplinary action may not be taken for rash and negligent driving, for not lodging any complaint for the accident with the police; for exceeding his authority by executing an agreement with a Government roadways driver and for incurring loss and damage to the factory. In the domestic enqu...
Afsar Ali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR190(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. The assessee has moved this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and seeks reference of the following question to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80C ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the request made by the assessee to the Income-tax Department to purchase National Savings Certificates of Rs. 40,000 out of the moneys of the assessee seized by the Department will entitle the assessee to get deduction under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Department was legally correct not to consider the request of the assessee to purchase National Savings Certificates of Rs. 40,000 to entitle the assessee to get deduction under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gargaons Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR170(All)
ORDER--Tribunal granting deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I--No deduction granted by CIT(A) in earlier yearsRatio :The fact that the first appellate authority had not yet disposed of the matter relating to earlier years having not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the question whether Tribunal was justified in granting deduction in the relevant year does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.Facts :In the departmental appeal for the asst. yr. 1983-84 before the Tribunal, it was held that the appeal for the asst. yr. 1982-83 had been set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for being disposed of afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties. The case for 1983-84 was also made as identical points were involved. The present case pertains to the asst. yr. 1986-87. The argument is that since no order has been passed as yet by the appellate authority for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim and dismissing the departmental a...
Akhilesh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC572
C.A. Rahim, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.1993 passed by Judge Family Court. Berailly in Criminal Misc. Application No. 227 of 1993. By that order learned Judge granted interim maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month in favour of the respondent No. 2 learned Advocate has submitted that the Family Court succeeded his jurisdiction in awarding No. 600/- per month to the respondent No. 2 whereas Section 125, Cr.P.C. provides that maximum amount maintenance which can be awarded to a person is Rs. 500/-. He has submitted that the revisionist is a daily wage earner and earning Rs. 20/- per day in a cloth merchant shop.2. In a decision reported in 1993, Cr.L.J. 2605 (Smt. Mamta v. A.N. Vaidya) it was decided that grant of interim maintenance pending proceeding under Section 123, Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and there is no scope for revision. But considering the fact that there is no illegality in the order there is necessity to interfere. In the decision ...
Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC633
C.A. Rahim, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.1993 passed by Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Application No. 227 of 1993. By that order learned Judge granted interim maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month in favour of the respondent No. 2, Learned Advocate has submitted that the Family Court exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding Rs. 600/-per month to the respondent No. 2 whereas Section 125, Cr.P.C. provides that maximum of amount maintenance which can be awarded to a person is Rs. 500/-. He has submitted that the revisionist is a duly wage earner and earning Rs. 20/- per day in a cloth merchant shop.2. In a decision reported in 1992, Cr.L.J. 2605, (Smt. Namta v. A.M. Vaidya), it was decided that grant of interim maintenance pending proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and there is no scope for revision. But considering the fact that there is no illegality in the order there is necessity to interfere. In the decisio...
Jotwani Electric Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1996(63)LC320(Allahabad)
1. Heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and also the ld. Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is being disposed of finally even before the exchange of the affidavits. The petitioner has challenged the Notification No. 223/87-CE dated 22.9.1987, and further claimed benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986.3. An identical question raised in this Writ Petition has been decided in a bunch of the Writ Petitions decided by this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 1987 in the case of Machine Well Engineers, Ghaziabad and Anr. v. Union of India, in which the impugned notification was held to be discriminatory and arbitrary, and a direction was issued to grant the petitioner benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 by ignoring subsequent amendments. The order of this Court dated 10.8.1990 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the amount of excise duty pa...
Jotwani Electric Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Collector of Cen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(58)LC686(Allahabad)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is being disposed of finally even before the exchange of the affidavits. The petitioner has challenged the Notification No. 223/87-CE dated 22.9.1987, and further claimed benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.1986.3. An identical question raised in this writ petition has been decided in a bunch of the writ petitions decided by this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 1987 in the case of M/s Machine Well Engineers, Ghaziabad and Anr. v. Union of India reported in 1994 (55) ECR 443 (Allahabad) in which the impugned notification was held to be discriminatory and arbitrary, and a direction was issued to grant the petitioner benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 by ignoring subsequent amendments. The order of this Court dated 10.8.1990 directing the petitioner to furn...
Dr. S.S. Ahluwalia Vs. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technol ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR313]; (1995)IILLJ1166All
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Appellant was Dean of Students Welfare in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the University). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated October 1, 1986, containing seven charges, was served on him. Enquiry Officer held charges No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as proved. Charge No. 5 was held to be partly proved and regarding charge No. 7 benefit of doubt was given to the appellant. On the basis of the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service by order dated December 28, 1988. Being aggrieved the appellant challenged the order of dismissal by means of writ petition No. 1061 of 1989, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the order of Board of Management of the University, dismissing him from service, was quashed and the matter was sent back to the Board of Management, to consider it afresh after giving copy of the Enquiry report and opportunity of bein...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »