Allahabad Court April 1998 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.
Udai Shanker Singh Vs. Branch Manager, L.i.C. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ183; 1998(2)AWC1419; (1998)2UPLBEC1442
M. Katju, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give benefit of disability claim of L.I.C. policy.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner had taken two policies of L.I.C. being policy Nos. 58545803 and 58545804 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. While going on a scooter, he met with an accident with a truck on 17.2.1990 due to which his right leg had to be amputated above the knee as is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Also, his right hand was paralysed in the same accident, as stated in para 4 of the petition and as is evident from Annexure-4. These facts have not been disputed by the respondents.4. However, the L.I.C. refused to make payment to the petitioner on the ground that the disability of the petitioner is not total, vide Annexure-11.5. Under the Insurance Policy in para 10, it is stated that the L.I.C. will make payment to the assured in case of accident which results in...
Shyam Sunder Lal Sharma Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Haridwar a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1477
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are taken up together as common question of facts are involved.2. Heard petitioner's counsel Sri Narayan Singh Negi. Sri. R. K. Agarwal appears for respondent No. 3 who has filed caveat on his behalf.3. This is tenant's writ petition. The house in question was previously owned by Nihal Chand and his sons. After the death of Nihal Chand, according to the case of the landlord, a family settlement took place between the family members and the house in question fell into the share of Brij Mohan Lal Garg respondent No. 3 and he alone became landlord of the same. Since he was at that time serving in Punjab rent was being realized under his authority by his brother Narendra Kumar. A memorandum in writing regarding family settlement aforesaid also came into existence on 8.9.1992 and names of the members of family were mutated in Municipal records against the property falling in their shares. Respondent No. 3 landlord was in service and retired on 31....
Chandra Shekhar Lal Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1511
M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.1. The petitioner is a retired District Judge, who retired on 31.1.1995. While he was in service, he applied for allotment of a house under the Indlrapuram Scheme at Ghazlabad and he paid all the instalments but the property was not allotted to him. Most of the amount which the petitioner deposited has been refunded to him but he has claimed Interest on the deposits.2. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that in view of para 10.40 of the scheme, no interest is payable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that para 10.40 will apply only if the petitioner surrenders the property under para 10.30 of the scheme. He has alleged that the petitioner never surrendered the property rather he wrote a letter to the respondent asking them to give him possession of the house or else refund the money. In our opinion, this does not amount to surrender as the petitioner had not given up his claim. Hence in our opinion the provision i...
Smt. Mukti Ray and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1510
D. K. Scth, J.1. By the Government Orders dated 15.12.1981, 28.2.1984 and 7.2.1990 (Annexures-1 to 3 to the writ petition), the State Government had decided that if both the husband and wife are in Government service, then only one of them would be entitled for House Rent Allowance, provided they reside in the same house By the Impugned orders contained in Annexures-4 to 18, the house rent allowance paid to the petitioners who are covered under the said Government Orders and that their spouses are getting house rent allowance, the house rent allowance paid to the petitioners has been sought to be recovered.2. By an interim order dated 3.1.1992 passed in this writ petition, the said recovery has been stayed and it was directed that the house rent allowance should be paid to the petitioners.3. The said Government Orders have been challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory inasmuch as while house rent allowance is payable to the husband but it is not been allowed to the wife and t...
Km. Rajni Mishra and Another Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act), Agra and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1529
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan counsel for the petitioners and also Sri Veer Singh and Sri Dinesh Tiwari counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.97 whereby the accommodation in question has been released in favour of the landlords after declaration of vacancy.3. It is not disputed that the petitioners came to occupy the building in question in the year 1986 without any order of allotment. The only question which arose for determination before the Courts below was whether the building at the time of letting was governed by the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 or not. The settled position of law, as it stands after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nootan's Kumar case, 1993 (2) ARC 204, is that after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. any letting made in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is Illegal and vo|d and the tenanted accommodation ...
Shramik Basti Niwasi Samiti, Kanpur and Others Vs. State of U.P. and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1705
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. In view of the decision of this Court In Uttar Pradesh Shramik Bosti and another v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14771 of 1997, decided on 2.3.1998, this petition and all connected petitions are dismissed. However, in view of the allegations made In paragraphs 7, 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit In Writ Petition No. 1589 of 1991 that unauthorised persons are In occupation of the labour colony, we direct the U. P. Labour Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur to either himself or 'through Additional Labour Commissioner, Housing U. P., Kanpur to decide which of the occupants In the Labour Colony, Kanpur are authorised and legal occupants and which are not. All the persons who are living in the colony may make representation giving full facts to the Labour Commissioner and same will be decided within a period of two months. Persons who are found not authorised shall be evicted forthwith. The D.M. and S.S.P., Kanpur will ensure compliance o...
Keshav Lal Khatri and Others Vs. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Maha Pal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1712
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The alleged ex parte order mutating the name of opposite party No. 4 was objected to by the petitioner whereupon the Executive Committee, after considering the objections, set aside the alleged ex parte order and passed a fresh order which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition on 25th September, 1993. In the said order. It was mentioned that both the parties were heard and the papers were perused and the order dated 23rd February, 1993is cancelled. By an order dated 25th September. 1993, this order was set aside by the Mayor asking the Executive Committee to decide the matter afresh. Mr. M. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th October, 1993 passed by the Mayor on the ground that the Mayor had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter inasmuch as the order dated 25th September. 1993 by which the order dated 23rd February. 1993 was cancelled and the application of opposite party No. 4 was rejected was an order under sub-section (1)...
Bhagwati Prasad Khetan Vs. Nagar Palika and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC876
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. This petition has been filed by one Bhagwati Prasad Khetan, who is a Member of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur, raising certain grievances against the conduct of opposite party No. 5, Bhola Nah Agrawal, Adhyaksha Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur. Appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been put in through Counsel Sri A.K. Bajpai.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The prayer is that opposite party No. 2 namely, the State may be directed to take action against the opposite party No. 5 under Sections 35 and 48 (7) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. It is also prayed that a C.B.I, enquiry be also ordered to be conducted against opposite party No. 5. Certain allegations have been made by the petitioner against opposite party No. 5, like allotment of shops against the Rules and other matters in which, it is said, opposite party No. 5 is misusing his authority as Adhyaksha. It is submitted that the State Government in authorised to remove such an ...
Anil Kumar Vs. U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC801
S.C. Verma, J.1. The main questions which arise for consideration in these petitions are that the additional posts of Assistant Engineers and Deputy Director (Construction) created by Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'Parishad') after creating new Divisions and making appointments by promotion are valid and in accordance with law as also within the competence/jurisdiction of the Parishad.2. The U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad is an authority created under the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam'), exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 26X (2) (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the Board had framed the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. 1984) laying down the conditions of service of the Officers and Staff of the Parishad. In the Engineering estab...
Ultimate Advertising and Marketing Vs. G.B. Laboratories Ltd., Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1314; [1989]66CompCas232(All)
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The core question Jn this special appeal is as to whether the respondent having paid the principal amount as claimed by the appellant in the company petition for winding up the respondent company, is entitled to the interest on such amount. The facts in brief are that the appellant filed company petition for winding up the respondent-company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The allegation of the appellant was that the respondent-company was Incorporated as a private limited company in the year 1977. It became a public limited company on 5.10.1982. Its object was to manufacture allopathic medicines, dry syrups, tablets, capsules, ointments and oil syrups etc. In April-May, 1984. the company was in the process of making public issue of its shares. It appointed the State Bank oflndla as the merchant bankers for the purpose of carrying out the public issue. It thereafter entered Into an agreement with the appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »