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.
Digvijay Singh Vs. Tehsildar Tehsil Nagina, District, Bijnor and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All96
ORDERRAVI S. DHAVAN, J.1. The petitioner, Digvijai Singh alias Diggi, in reference to the elections of the co-operative societies which are in progress, filed his papers from the constituency of Asadullahpur Prithi on 2 May, 1994. On the nomination papers which he had filed, the petitioner faces objections from others on two grounds, firstly, that the petitioner had been debarred from constest-ing any elections by an order of the Collector and secondly, he has been convicted under the U.P. Goondas Act, 1970.2. On each of the aspects referred to above, the petitioner submits, he had filed writ petitions. Against the first aspect, it is writ petition No. 9314 of 1993; Digvijai Singh alias Diggi v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others. Against the second, it is writ petition No. 9509 of 1992; Digvijai Singh v. District Magistrate/ Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies and others. In Writ Petition No.'9509 of 1992, the order by the petitioner had been debarred from conte...
Mathura Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR19]; (1995)IILLJ297All
R.A. Sharma, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a Presiding Officer, Labour Court in pursuance of his selection under Sections 4-D and 4-E of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His first appointment was made vide order dated October 17, 1989 for a period of one year. This appointment was further extended for a period of one year by subsequent order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been granted another extension of six months. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court claiming for appropriate direction to the respondents to permit him to work as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court upto the age of 65 years. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this Special Appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two submissions in support of this Special Appeal, viz. (i) in view of the provisions of...
Ram Singh and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: 1994LC218(Allahabad); 1994LC223(Allahabad); 1995LC657(Allahabad); 1995LC217(Allahabad); 1995(75)ELT726(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Collector, Central Excise dated 23rd May, 1984 and the orders dated 1st January, 1985, 17th June, 1986, 23rd October, 1986, 29th January, 1987 and 14th April, 1987 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). It is also prayed that the respondents be directed not to realise the demand made by the Collector, Central Excise.2. Although, the copy of the writ petition was served on the Standing Counsel for Union of India on 18th August, 1987, no counter affidavit has so far been filed. The petition was listed for hearing and in spite of the service of an individual notice dated 25th July, 1994 on the Senior Standing Counsel, no one appeared for the respondents when the case was taken up for hearing on 27th July, 1994.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. The petitioner's case is that i...
Smt. Pushpa Agarwal Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR20]; (1995)IILLJ264All; (1995)1UPLBEC154
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Appellant was appointed as Librarian-Clerk on temporary basis against the vacancy of Smt.Sukhbir Kaur Sandhu for a fixed term. As Smt.Sandhu confined to remain on leave, the services of the appellant were extended from time to time. By the last order dated March 13, 1987 the appellant was appointed for a period till the decision was taken on the application of Smt. Sandhu. Thereafter by order dated April 8, 1989 services of the appellant were terminated, against which she filed writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Singel Judge on March 16, 1993. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that termination of service of the appellant is in contravention of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Act). This contention cannot be accepted. Retrenchment has been defined in Section 2(s) of the U.P.Act, ac...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Audesh Kumari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC123; 1996ACJ4
C.A. Rahim, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 15.1.1981 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, allowing the claims of both the petitioners in part under Section 110-B of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the accident which resulted into the death of Pheran Singh and Pam Singh.2. The claim was made on the basis that both the deceased were travelling by motor cycle No. PUM 6289. Bus No. CPH 8297, which was owned by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, caused accident on 8.7.1978 at about 7.30 p.m.3. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the heirs of both the deceased for which Claim Petition Nos. 1 of 1979 and 7 of 1979 were started. Learned Tribunal Judge allowed Rs, 1,00,800/- to the widow and child of the deceased Pheran Singh in claim petition No. 1 of 1979 and allowed Rs. 1,10,000/- to the widow and four children of the deceased Pam Singh in claim petition No. 7 of 1979.4. The case of the claimants is that on ...
Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT231(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 12th July, 1994 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and an order dated 8th August, 1990, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Excise, Varanasi.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Harkauli, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of biris which is subject to excise duty under the Excises and Salt Act. On 21st July, 1983, the then Assistant Collector issued a notice under Section 11A of the said Act to the petitioner to show cause why central excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,099/- be not realised from him for the period 23rd January, 1978 to 29th October, 1979, during which period, the petitioner was alleged to have sent 74 consignments of biris to different parties at Jagadhari without paying excise duty on the biris contained in the c...
Harendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC114
C.A. Rahim, J.1. The two appeals, namely first appeal from Order No. 631 of 1978 and First Appeal Order No. 632 of 1978 have been taken up together in view of the fact that both the appeals arise out of an accident held on 15.12.1968 at 9.45 p.m. by petrol tanker No. UOPU 4074. From the record it appears that First Appeal From Order No. 631 of 1978 was dismissed for default on 18.8.1991. A restoration petition was filed on 30.1.1992. Heard learned Counsel for both sides and after considering the submissions and the facts thereto we find that the grounds for nonappearance of the learned Counsel are satisfactory. The petition for restoration is, therefore, allowed and the case is restored to its original file and number. Final hearing of the appeal was thereafter taken on considering both the parties.2. These two appeals arise out of the Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 7 of 1969 and 16 of 1969 started by Sita Ram and Chhitfar Mal as claimants. It has been stated that both these two person...
Lakhan Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All4
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri S. U.Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jain Banerji holding the brief of Sri S. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant here filed a writ petition challenging' the recovery of Rs. 6,000/- and odd at the instance of the State Bank of India. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by the following order:'The petitioner has challenged the recovery of a very petty amount of Rs. 6,000/- and odd. It is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.'.3. From the order reproduced above, it is apparent that the writ petition was dismissed merely on the ground that the amount which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner is very petty amount of Rs. 6000/- and odd. The quantum of the amount is not relevant and it was not an issue on which the writ petition could have been dismissed. For a poor man petty amount may be too much to pay. For a rich man even lakhs may not...
Kumari Poonam and Another Vs. Phool Chand and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1254; AIR1995All5
ORDERMohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order dismissing the claim petition as barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act.2. Claimants are widow and minor daughter of the deceased, who was victim of an accident caused by a Jeep U. H. X. 7449, when the appeal was listed for admission, We heard learned counsel for appellants and find that conclusion of tribunal is unassailable.3. Accident was on 14-3-1985 when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. Claim application was filed on 29-11-1989 after the Act came into force repealing the 1939 Act. Tribunal has accepted objection of the insurer that appeal is not maintainable as being barred by limitation as provided under Section 166(3) of the Act.4. Since interpretation of Section 166(3) of the Act is involved in this appeal entire Section 166 is extracted which read as follows:--166. Application for Compensation - (1) An ap...
Sri Krishna Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR53]; (1995)ILLJ1060All; (1995)1UPLBEC227
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. A suit being Original Suit No. 1003 of 1965 filed by Shri Krishana, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 784/1980 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8217 of 1984 against the defendant Kanpur Industrial Development Cooperative Estate Limited which is the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12284 of 1984 challenging the resignation tendered by him on March 5, 1965 which was accepted on March 9, 1965 by the General Manager of the defendant alleging that the alleged resignation had been obtained under duress and in any case had been withdrawn on March 6, 1965 before its acceptance rendering it to be inoperative and ineffective in law and claiming a decree of prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from performing his duties until his services are terminated in accordance with law. This suit was decreed by the in Additional Munsif, Kanpur on November 2, 1970. The trial court granted a decree in favour of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »