Allahabad Court November 2001 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inder Deo Ojha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC332; 2003ACJ471
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 7.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur (in short 'the Tribunal') awarding Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation to the claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondents with the allegations that Raj Kumar, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, aged about 14 years, while he was going on bicycle on 18.9.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. from his village Ujhawali to Surdaha, when he reached near kutchhi patri of Gola Barhalganj, then from north, a tractor No. UHW 4634 dashed against him with the result he received serious injuries and died on the spot.3. The appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds. It was denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and it was further urged that on the date of accident the vehicle in question was not insured.4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to ras...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinta Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1404
Sudhir Narain and V.K. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Deoria dated 28.4.2001 awarding Rs. 1,79,500 as compensation to claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that the deceased Jai Chand was going on cycle on 26.5.1996 at 5.30 p.m. when jeep No. NLH 5545 dashed the cycle and Jai Chand died.3. The claim petition was filed by the widow Chinta Devi, respondent No. 1 and the parents.4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in question and considering the material facts awarded a sum of Rs. 1,79,500 as compensation.5. This order has been challenged in the present appeal. We have heard Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants have failed to prove that the jeep in question was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal has recorded a f...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Harku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC405
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 1,17,500/- as compensation to claimant-respondent.2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent with the allegations that the son of respondent No. 1 while travelling in Truck No. CPG-7932 met with an accident in which his son died. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question and after considering the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claimant-respondent was entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,17,500/-.4. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged in the present appeal.5. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the truck in question...
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Usha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC575
Suhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah dated 2.8.2001 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,21,400/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that Shyam Singh, the husband of the respondent No. 1 was travelling by the DCM Canter No. UP-75 A/9534 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against a stationary Truck No. DL-1 G/3934 from behind resulting in his death. It was further alleged that the deceased was 38 years old and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month by working as Conductor on the vehicle DCM Canter. The claimants claimed the compensation of Rs. 6,75,000/-.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on several grounds. It was alleged that the driver of the bus had not valid licence. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver had a valid licence and after considering the materials on record came to the conclusion that the cl...
Kailash Nath Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1321; (2001)3UPLBEC2074
S. K. Sen, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None appears to oppose the application.2. This is an application for recalling of the order dated 14th December. 1999, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 997 of 1995.3. It is not in dispute that on the date when the order was passed ex parte the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant had obtained leave by filing an illness slip even then the Division Bench proceeded with and decided the matter ex parte. It appears to us that when an Advocate is 111, it is expected that the matter should be sympathetically considered to enable the Advocate to make his submissions. An Advocate actually represents litigant and in fact by such ex parte decision, the litigant is deprived of the opportunity to contest his case through his counsel which is his legal right.4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision in the case of Rais Ahmad v. State of U. P. and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 32, in which the...
Fauzdar Vs. Collector, Maharajganj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1282; (2002)2UPLBEC1082
D. S. Sinha and Lakshml Bihari, JJ.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri U. K. Pandey, the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents. 2. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of the following two reliefs : '(i) Issue, a writ, order, or direction include a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the money deposited by the petitioner in case the petitioner is not found eligible for the extension of the patta ; (ii) Issue, a writ, order, or direction including a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 10.5.1991 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition) ;' 3. Sri Prakash Padia, the learned counsel of the petitioner, stated that relief No, (ii) is not pressed and the petition be treated to be continued to relief No. (i) only. 4. The petitioner is a contractor. By an order dated 16th April. 1990, passed by the District Magistrate. Maharajganj, the peti...
Gaje Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC31; (2002)1UPLBEC56
R.R. Yadav, J.1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 23.2.2001. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by the Estate Officer, Controller of Defence Accounts (Army) Meerut, respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 12.10.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. XI, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 118 of 2001, Gaje Singh v. Union of India and Ors., a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner is to pay Rs. 1,33.301 for unauthorised use and occupation of premises No. D.A.D. Quarter No. B-1/1, Lekhanagar, Meerut Cantt. after his retirement from the post of Section Officer.2. The facts averred in the writ petition revealed that the petitioner was in service of the Union of India and was posted as Section Officer at the Controller of Defence Accounts (Army) Meerut Cantt. and was allottedthe premises mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paragraph as an e...
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC181; [2002(92)FLR10]; (2002)1UPLBEC726
M. Katju and R.B. Mishra, JJ.1. Petitioner has retired as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) on 31.7.2001. He wants to retain the official accommodation in his possession till completion of a departmental proceeding against him or till disbursement of pension.2. In our opinion, retention of the official accommodation andcompletion of any enquiry (or payment of pension) are separate issues. A retired Government official cannot insist on retaining the official accommodation till his pension is paid or enquiry completed.3. Learned counsel for petitioner invited our attention in a case of Parmeshwar Shukla and Anr. v. Chancellor. Chandra Shekhar Azad University in Writ Petition No. 1729 of 1999, decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 8.12,1999.4. We have perused the said judgment, copy of which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. We are of the opinion that this judgment does not lay down any such legal proposition that a retired Government official is entitled to continue in possession of the...
Asha Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1560
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Rathor, counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. are present. Pursuant to order dated 12-4-2001, counter-affidavit sworn to by Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of U.P. has been filed.2. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.3. The petitioner, accused of a murder charge by filing this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing the State Government's order dated 20-1-2001 whereby investigation in case crime No. 214 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. of P.S. Kisni, District Mainpuri has been transferred from C.B.C.I.D. to general police. Further prayer has also been made to direct the C.B.C.I.D., Agra Division to investigate the aforesaid case in accordance with law.4. Sri Apul Misra, counsel for the petitioner contends that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 3, the aforesaid case was registered at Kisni P.S. and invest...
Surendra Mohan and anr. Vs. Registrar, Departmental Examination and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC50
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioners, Surendra Mohan and Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, in the present petition, claim themselves to belong to Scheduled Caste. They had applied for the course of Basic Training Certificate (BTC) for teaching Urdu in Junior/Senior Basic Schools in terms of the advertisement dated 16.10.2000. After the examination, the result was declared and both the petitioners were declared successful under the category of Scheduled Caste. However, when they went to join the training, they were declined admission on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 was overage and the petitioner No. 2 could not be given benefit of 10 marks as is available to a ward of a teacher.2. I have heard Shri Ashutosh Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Dwivedi learned Standing Counsel.3. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, hence this petition is decided at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »