Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All297
ORDERD. P. Mohapatra, C. J. 1. In ihis petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sri Afzal Husain has prayed for the quashing of the assessment bills in question (vide Annexure 1), for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite-parties not to give effect to the said assessment bills (Annexure 1) and to restore the electric supply to his ice factory till such time as the Chief Electrical Inspector decides the dispute and till the petitioner defaults or neglects to pay the amount legally due from him and for other consequential reliefs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short the Board), through its Chairman, Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division (Residency), Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking, Lucknow and Chief Electrical Inspector, U.P. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow are arrayed as opposite-parties in the petition.2. The case of the petitioner, sans unnecessary details, may be slated thus : The petitioner runs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(98)ELT588(All)
ORDER1. Heard Shri R.N. Vajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.2. It is 1984 petition. This petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 22-8-1984, 28-9-1979 and 28-6-1979 contained in annexures 11, 8 and 7 to the petition passed by the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.3. The short facts leading to the petition are as under :-The petitioner M/s. Charan Metal Corporation is carrying on business of manufacturing steel furniture since 1965 with the aid of power and at times when it is found necessary due to urgency of supply of materials firm also purchases and gets fabricated steel furnitures to cope with demand orders. The firm supplies steel furniture on rate contract. On information received, the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Division, Kanpur visited the premises of the factory on 10-9-1975 and they observed on the basis of perusal of records and examination of certain persons that the manufacturing of steel furniture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All31
ORDER1. This is second appeal by defendant No. 1 Smt. Ketki Devi.2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff Laxman filed a suit against the defendants for cancellation of the gift deed dated 5th January 1970 executed by Fateh Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Kiran Devi alias Ketki, appellant, alias Kailashi. Fateh Singh was the brother of the plaintiff Laxman Singh. Lala Ram was the son of FatehSingh. Wife of Lala Ram married with defendant No. 2 Roshan Lal. lala Ram died in 1955. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendent No. 2, with a view to grab the land of Fateh Singh got a forged and fictitious gift deed prepared on 5th January, 1970. It was alleged that the gift deed was never executed by Fateh Singh and that the said gift deed was not binding upon the plaintiff. The allegation of fraud in obtaining the gift deed was also made.3. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit pleading that the gift deed was executed by Fateh Singh on 5th January, 1970 in her favou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All152
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The petitioner, admittedly, has married with an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India respondent No. 1. She was appointed as Insurance Agent by letter of March 31, 1982 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), which inter-alia, is subjected to a condition that if in future the petitioner has any relationship with any employee of the Corporation then her agency will be terminated in accordance with Rubs.2. On account of petitioner's matrimonial relationship with an employee of the Corporation, the respondents terminated her agency by giving one month's notice dated February 17, 1986 (Annexure VII to the writ petition) under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations,' which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.3. The impugned notice dated February 17, 1986 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) was challenged in appeal by the petitioner but failed and, therefore, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997CriLJ974
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14-8-95 passed by 1st A. C. J. M., Jaunpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered that as a prima facie case was made out against the accused, they should be summoned to face charges under Sections 494/109 I.P.C.2. Admittedly, Smt. Indrawati was married to Ram Dular about 15 or 16 years earlier. She was turned out of her house by the husband and other family members after assaulting her. Some times in May, 1995, Ram Dular remarried with another lady Smt. Manorama. Her father Haripat lodged a complaint, wherein he has alleged that the marriage between Indrawati and Ram Dular was performed according to Hindu rites by observing all the formalities required by law and customs. She was ill-treated by the husband and his family members. She was assaulted for bringing more and more dowry. A daughter was born from the this wedlock. But unfortunately, she died. There -after, no other issue Was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC266
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. This matter before the Court of denying house rent allowance to the petitioner who is a lecturer at the Arya Kanya Degree College, an institution affiliated to the Allahabad University, in the duration of the writ petition being pending is seeing filing of several record on behalf of the State-respondents without any clear cut defence on the issue raised by The petitioner.2. If the matter were to be seen in generality the court cannot go on interpreting the situation as and when it arises all too frequently in the matter of payment of house rent to a State employee or a compensatory allowance in the event of an accommodation not being provided or a State employee receiving a house rent allowance in consideration of living in an accommodation of his own.3. The petitioner owns a house. It is recorded in her name. If the matter is just left here, there apparently, would be no issue amongst the State-respondents. But for the fact that the petitioner is married and her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2646]; (1997)ILLJ489All
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The award dated December 20, 1993 passed by Sri R.K. Gupta Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V) U.P. Meerut in Adjudication case No. 9 of 1981 under Section 4K of the U.P., Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been challenged by means of this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.P. Agarwal contends that refusal to grant back wages, despite ordering for reinstatement by the learned Industrial Tribunal, is erroneous in law, illegal and cannot be sustained in law. According to him the grant of back wages is a rule when order of reinstatement is passed. Rule can be deviated only in certain exceptional cases where it has been shown that the workman has been employed elsewhere or had made some earning during the period of his enforced idleness or had wilfully refused to seek alternative job or the like and it is for the employer to plead and prove to the satisfaction of the Labour Court such facts. The workman is not required to plead or prove su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2515]; (1997)ILLJ581All
D.K. Seth, J.1. An application under Section 33C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, made before the Labour Court, seeking to recover the bonus for the year 1976-1977, was allowed by an order dated June 20, 1981 in Misc. Case No. 75 of 1980 which has been challenged by means of this writ petition. It is alleged that the workman had tendered his resignation on November 23, 1976, therefore, he has not completed 12 months of service in the year 1976-77 which ended on March 31, 1977.By reason of the terms contained in Clause (1) (iv) of the terms of settlement relating to bonus as contained in the memorandum of settlement which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition the workman having not completed 12 months' service, he was not entitled to claim the said bonus. On these facts Miss Minakshi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bonus being included in Schedule III of the Industrial Disputes Act, by reason of Section 10thereof the dispute with regard to bonus is to be refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC161
S.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner who was working on the post of Conductor with the U. P. Road Transport Corporation was removed from service by order dated 20-7-1989. The appeal of the petitioner was also rejected by order dated 25-10-1989. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The main grounds on which the orders have been assailed are that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet dated 18-1-1989 was not at ail considered end the enquiry proceeded ex parte and the Enquiry Officer considered the handwriting and signature on the way bills on the basis of Magnifying Glass as an expert. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet and he submitted his reply to the charges. The Enquiring Officer held the charges being proved in which there was interpolation and overwriting in the way bills and forged tickets were prepared by the conductor on various trips at Bareilly-Lucknow-Kanpur route on 5-3-1038, Bareilly-Katra and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997CriLJ30
K.C. Bhargava, J.1. In this case there were two appellants, namely Bhagwan Din and Prabhu Dayal alias Prabhoo. Prabhu Dayal alias Prabhoo died during the pendency of the appeal.2. Bhagwan Din and Prabhu Dayal alias Prabhoo (since dead) were convicted by III Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi by judgment and order dated 11th September, 1980 under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- respectively under each count and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The sentences were made to run concurrently.3. According to the prosecution on 13-4-1979 at about 1-00 p.m. Bhagwan Din alias Bhagannu and Prabhu Dayal alias Prabhoo appellants came to the house of the complainant Surner, the father of the deceased Shyam Lal, and took Shyam Lal along with them on the pretext of cutting the grass. Shyam Lal at ...
Tag this Judgment!