Allahabad Court October 1995 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.
Mithoo Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1385
G.S.N Tripathi, J.1. The then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, vide his judgment and order dated 27-11-79 passed in S. T. No. 3268 of 1974 State v. Mithoo Singh and Jalal Uddin, held the accused Mithoo Singh and Jalal Uddin guilty on a charge under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 5 years' R. I.2. The prosecution case started on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Vishwa Nath Singh, P.W. 1 at the police station Talgram on 16-6-72 at 7.15 A.M. The distance of the police station is about 4 miles from the place of occurrence. The incident is said to have taken place on 15/16-6-72 around midnight.3. The complainant has alleged that he was sleeping in his house. A lantern was burning in the Angan of his house. Around midnight, about 14-15 dacoits entered his house and they caught hold of the complainant and his wife. They were compelled to sit inside the courtyard. Their movements were being watched by 3-4 dacoits. The remaining dacoits also came inside the coutryard an...
Almora Magnesite Ltd. Vs. Deoki Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC328
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. These first appeal from orders are directed against the interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award an amount Rs. 25000/- as interim compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims in the accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order awarding the interim compensation is not warranted according to law. He submitted that the vehicle in which the victims were traveling was insured and the Court below has wrongly awarded the amount to be paid by the appellant Company to the owner of the vehicle. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is the sole liability for the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the Court below without considering this aspect for proper prospective repel the submission of the appellant.2. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1985 Accident Claims Journal, page 1,The OrientalFir...
M/S. Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All135
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Two Judges of this Court having differed in their opinion on the question of competence of State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1964) (in short, the Adhiniyam) have referred the following point of difference to third Judge for opinion:'Whether by virtue of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the State Legislature stood denuded of power to legislate regulating supply, distribution and price of molasses-a product of sugar industry, and was conse-qeuntly incompetent to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1964)?'Hon'ble the Chief Justice instead of referring the matter to the third Judge, constituted this Full Bench to answer the point of difference between the two Judges and that is how the matter has come up before us. It arises in the context of statement made in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of ...
U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Office ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ324All
S.R. Singh, J. 1. Subject mutter of impugnment in the instant petition is the Award dated May 10, 1995 published on July 13, 1995 rendered by the Labour Court. Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. (52 of 1993 consequent upon Reference by the Stale Govt. under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (In short the 'Act') vide order dated July 5, 1993. The dispute referred to the Labourcourt is extracted below:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh egs'k pUn fuxeiq= Jh xaxk fuxe lsYl eSu dks fnukad 8&8&88 ls dk;Z ls izFke@ cafpr fd;ktkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn gks rks lacfU/kr Jfed dk fgrYkkHk@{kfriwfrZikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk ** 2. The Labour Court by means of the impugned Award has tilted the scale of justice in favour of the second respondent. It recorded a finding, vide order dated January 12, 1994 passed on application 9-D moved on behalf of the workman for summoning his personal file, that it was not in dispute that the workman (second respondent...
Vishwanath Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR677(All); [1996]85TAXMAN235(All)
ORDER--Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal on ground of limitation preferred against order of AAC.Ratio & Held :Even though appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner merged in the order of Tribunal, therefore, in view of the bar of section 264(4) such order cannot be interfered with by the Commissioner under section 264.Application :Also to current assessment years. A. Y. :1961-62Income Tax Act 1961 s.264(4) ...
Babu Son of Buddhan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2116
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. The then Mrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide his judgment and order dated 6-4-79 passed in S.T. No. 268 of 1978 State v. Babu Singh and Tejpal, held the accused appellants Babu and Tejpal guilty of a charge Under Section 326/34 IPC and 326 IPC respectively and sentenced them to undergo 4 years R.I. Co-accused Samai Singh was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.2. The prosecution case started on the basis of the FIR Exhibit Ka 1 lodged by Sohan Lal, PW 2 at the Police Station Sayana on 28-8-76 at 7 a.m. The occurrance took place in the same morning at about 6 a.m. The distance of the police station is 2 miles. It has been alleged that on the date of occurrance i.e. 28-8-76 around 6 a.m. the complainant's brother Mohan Lal, PW 1 was going to ease out. When he reached near the houses of Gopal and Tejpal accused, there were 8-9 other persons. They all pounced upon the complainant. Tejpal pierced his knife and badly injured Mohan Lal. The witnesses arrived...
Pooran Sugar Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR221(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated June 30, 1995, and July 3, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, respectively.2. The petitioner is a firm doing the business of manufacture of khandsari sugar and rab, etc. A raid was made on the business and residential premises of the partners on April 4, 1995, by the Income-tax Department and cash amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs was seized as well as the entire books of the petitioner were seized. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer passed a restraint order under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (annexure-2 to the writ petition). It is alleged that on account of that restraint order, the petitioner was not able to lift the aforesaid goods, which according to the petitioner belong to some other persons. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 761 of 1995, in which this court directed respondent No. 2 to p...
Jai Maakali Aluminium Metal Works Vs. Tilak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ670All; (1996)1UPLBEC411
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tej Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.2. Instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the award dated April 20, 1978 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Agra, the Respondent No. 2 in Adjudication Case No. 203 of 1976 (Central) emanating from a reference to him under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby it has been held that Sri Tilak Raj, an employee of the petitioner, was deprived of his work 'without any just and lawful cause or excuse since January 23, 1976 and he should be reinstated with continuity in service and full back wages'.3. The question referred to the Labour Court was whether termination of the services of Sri Tilak Raj, the Respondent No. 1, with effect from January 23, 1976, was justified and/or illegal If not to what benefit and compensation the Respondent No. 1 was e...
Manager, Jyoti Biri Company Vs. Prescribed Authority/Asstt. Regional L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ290All; (1996)1UPLBEC354
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tej Ram, learned Standing Counsel representing the Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Regional Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, the Respondent No. 1, Nobody appears for the Respondent No. 2.2. By means of this petition under Artcile 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated January 4, 1978 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter called 'the Act'.3. Asserting that he was an employee of M/s. Jyoti Bin Company, Mohalla Basantpur, Gorakhpur, hereinafter called 'the Employer': that for the period between April, 1976 and July 3, 1976 he was not paid full wages; and that certain amount in lieu of the overtime work also was not paid to him, Sri Ram Briksh, the Respondent No. 2 approached the Respondent No. 1 for direction to the Employer for payment of the dues. The petitioner look the stand that the ...
Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Titanore Components Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ257All
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. The appellant, who is an employee of a private trading Company (respondent No. 1) filed a writ petition challenging the order of his reversion from the post of clerk grade I to the post of Watch Man. This writ petition has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge on two grounds, namely(i) the writ petition is not maintainable; and (ii) the appellant has an alternative remedy before the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.2. Writ petition lies against the order of 'any person or authority'. It is settled now by decisions of the Supreme Court that such a person or authority need not necessarily be a statutory authority or the instrumentality of the State. It may also include the person discharging statutory/public duty. Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.B. Eimatiua1(l969-ll-LLJ- 749) has laid down that a mandamus can issue even to a private person or a company to carry out the statutory duties imposed upon him/it; but if the duty imposed upon such a person/auth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›