Allahabad Court December 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.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chandra Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC598
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 21.9.2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents on the death of their daughter. '2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents with the allegations that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver, the daughter of the deceased aged about 8 years was crushed by Bus No. UP 62 D-6881 and died on the spot. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the amount awarded is excessive. Firstly the appellant did not obtain permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is now not open to it to urge this point. Secondly, on facts we are satisfied that the amount awarded is not excessive.4. The appeal is, acco...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Upendra Babu Dubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC136
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27.8.2001 awarding Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents with the allegations that on 13.1.1999 Priyank Dubey along with Om Prakash Sharma and Vinay Kumar Shukla was going on foot from Ajitmal to Raharpur at about 11.15 a.m. and when he reached near the Police Station Ajitmal, Truck No. UAN 9514 dashed against him, with the result he sustained severe injuries resulting in his death.3. Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the accident had taken place on 13.1.1999 and prior to it the policy having been cancelled, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the insured under the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act).4. Briefly, the facts are that the owner of the vehicle gave a cheque dated 3.10.1...
Prithvi Nath Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC799
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has sought to quash the entire auction proceedings in regard to settlement of fisheries rights in favour of respondent No. 6. 2. The version of the petitioner is that he is a fisherman by caste and was granted fisheries rights inrespect of the plots in question covering an area 62.43 acres situate in village Matlyariya, Block Siswa. Tehsil Nichlaul, District Mahrajganj on 23.8.1991 for 10 years. The period came to an end on 23.8.2001. The Naib Tahsildar, tehsil Nichlaul, district Mahrajganj, respondent No. 4 auctioned the pond in question for fisheries rights in favour of respondent No. 6 on 2.11.2001 and it has been approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nichlaul, district MahraJganj on 3.11.2001 for a sum of Rs. 3,04,000 for ten years. 3. The petitioner has challenged the auction proceedings on the ground that the auction is in violation of the Government Orders dated 2.5.1981 and 17.10.1995 and secondly the procedure prescribed for holding the...
Unicast (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT224(All)
1. We have heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the opposite party.2. We are of the view that out of eight questions only question Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi raise substantial question of law which are as under :(i) Whether M/s. P.C.T. Ltd. having supplied the raw material to the applicant-company (job worker) and the applicant having received the said raw material directly from the supplier, was entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules?(ii) Whether, admittedly, the applicant being the job worker and the inputs having been despatched to the job work's factory premises, hence in view of the Circular No. 146/57/95-CE., dated 12th May, 1995, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of Mod-vat credit?(iii) Whether Modvat Rules only require that there may be a document showing proof of payment of excise du...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1329
G.P. Mathur, A.C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, Sri H.N. Singh for the contesting respondents and have perused the affidavits.2. According to Office report there is delay of six years thirty days in filing the appeal. It is averred in the affidavit that that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 28.5.1995 without any counter affidavit having been filed as notice of the writ petition was not served on the department. After coming to know of the impugned order a recall application duly supported with an affidavit, was filed on 2nd April, 1996. Thereafter, an application for early listing of the recall application was filed on 8th May, 2000. However, as fee writ petitioner filed a contempt petition, the present Special Appeal has been filed. Sri H.N. Singh has submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and every day's delay has not been explained. In our opinion., in the fa...
Ashutosh Pandey Vs. Secretary, Durga NaraIn College, Fatehgarh and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC112; [2002(93)FLR561]; (2002)1UPLBEC579
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. Petitioner, by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the respondent college, respondent No. 1, Annexure-5 to the writ petition purporting to punish the petitioner, which according to the petitioner has not been done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Statute 21.02 (1) of the Kshatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Kanpur University. Kanpur.3. Learned standing counsel raised two objections to the maintainability of the present writ petition at this stage, firstly if the assertion of the petitioner amounts to punishment, then either the petitioner should approach the District inspector of Schools as according to the petitioner the District Inspector of Schools has not approved the punishment Imposed by the Secretary of the college, or the petitioner should have approached the Dist...
Yog Sansthan Vs. Collector, Moradabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC84
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri D. V. Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 22.3.2001 passed by the Collector, Moradabad and the Order dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad.3. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :Petitioner claimed to be a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Land Management Committee, Lakari Fazalpur, tahsil and district Moradabad passed a resolution on 30.12.1993 for allotment of 0.62 decimals land of plot No. 1549 which was recorded as 'rasta' in favour of the petitioner. The said resolution is claimed to have been approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 12.9.1994. The petitioner has further claimed that the Consolidation Officer vide his Order dated 27.5.1996 also directed that the name of the petitioner be recorded over plot No. 1549 area 0.62 decimals who Ordered tha...
Moti Lal Nanhoo Mal and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1819
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6.9.2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 to the claimants-respondents.2. The deceased Bhoori Singh died in the accident while he was returning to his home after labouring. The driver of truck No. USO 3877 dashed him and he died in the hospital. He was a labourer and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. He died leaving behind him, his widow, three minor children besides parents.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellants on various grounds. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. This appeal has been filed by the owner and truck driver.4. We have heard Mr. K.M. Garg, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for claimants-respondents.5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the driver had a valid licence and the insurance company w...
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Budhiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ691
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6.9.2001 awarding a sum of Rs, 1,67,000 to the claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that the deceased Anirudh Ben was travelling from Barhaj to Deoria by bus No. UP 52-A 5410. The bus dashed against the tree. He received injuries and died leaving behind him his widow and 6 minor children as dependants. He was aged about 40 years and was earning by labour work.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and on consideration of evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000 as compensation.4. We have heard Mr. S.K. Mehrotra, the learned Counsel for the appellant who contended that the bus was being driven with 57 passengers while only 19 passengers were permitted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Orienta...
Krishna Kant Awasthi Vs. Cadre Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC964; (2002)1UPLBEC695
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 6.6.1987 and 30.5.1987, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to finally absorb the petitioner as a member of the Cooperative Centralized Service and treat him as such in accordance with Rule 9 of the Co-operative Bank Centralized Service Rules, 1976.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Accountant in the Bahraich District Co-operative Bank w.e.f. 9.6.1959. He passed the training course in the year 1963 and was promoted as Branch Manager w.e.f. 26.1.1966 and was confirmed as such in the year 1967 vide resolution of May. 1967 of the Committee of Management of the Bank. The confirmation of the petitioner as Branch Manager was made from the date of his promotion i.e., 26.1.1966. Since a person Junior to the petitioner was promoted as Senior Accountant, hence the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal against his illegal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »