Allahabad Court December 2002 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 Company Limited Vs. Anil Prakash Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC155
M.P. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant. The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 7,72,500/'- as compensation to the claimants on account of the untimely death of Navneet Naik, son of the claimants, aged about 20 years in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a tanker bearing registration No. M.P. 23 DA/1239.2. The learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.3. In this connection, suffice it to say that there is nothing to indicate that the insurer-appellant had obtained the requisite permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in that view of the matter, it can only raise the statutory defences available to it under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.4. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was a breach of terms and condit...
Veena Agrawal Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC402
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner---Smt. Veena Agarwal has been elected to the post of Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad City. The polling, counting and declaration took place on 20.11.2000, 25.11.2000 and 26.11.2000 respectively. By an Election Petition No. 14 of 2000, Smt. Asma Aslam, respondent No. 2 has challenged the elections under Section 61 of the U. P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959, as amended by U. P. Act Nos. 12 of 2000, 26 of 1995, 8 of 1998, 17 of 1999 and 7 of 2000, for declaring of elections dated 26.11.2000 as illegal and void. The election has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice adopted by petitioner in the elections, irregularities in procedure of counting, and exercise of undue influence by senior political leaders, as well as illegality in counting and illegal exclusion of the polling agents of petitioner. Various other allegations have also been made with regard to counting and declaration of result. Upon service of notice, petitioner filed an applicat...
SaifuddIn Ahmad Vs. Kalpnath Ram, D.i.O.S. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC245
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by petitioner informing this Court that order dated 5.2.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 20178 of 1989 quashing the impugned order dated 19.9.1989 and directing that the petitioner shall be regularised as teacher of classes VI, VII and VIII with all consequential benefits. 2. It is alleged in the contempt petition that petitioner is a teacher in Intermediate College known as U. P. State Cement Corporation Inter College, managed and run by State Cement Corporation Ltd., Dala Cement Factory, Dala, district, Sonbhadra. He has been working and taking the classes VI to X in the college for several years but was being treated as teacher, belonging to basic sections of the college and was not absorbed in C.T. grade which was converted into L.T. grade from 1989. A writ petition was filed by him which was allowed with the aforesaid directions. 3. Petitioner served a copy of order along with representations dated 26.3.1999 and 20.8.1999...
Om Veer Singh Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC510
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, assisted by Sri S. K. Vidyarthi for petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain for contesting respondents.2. Petitioner has instituted Original Suit No. 155 of 1997 against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 for permanent injunction. An application for interim injunction was rejected by trial court. By the same order, an application for injunction in counter claim was allowed. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate court.3. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was a tenant of the disputed property and that in any case, his possession was permissible. He was, therefore, entitled to interim injunction. The courts below have found that the rent receipts dated 31.12.1992, paper No. 9A, was issued by defendant Anil Kumar who is not owner of the property. He was neither authorised nor attorned to issue rent receipts by the owners, namely, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar and Smt. Aruna. The other rent receipts were also not exe...
Dr. Nilambhar Jha Vs. Special Judge/Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC684
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Additional District Judge. Gorakhpur and the judgment and order dated 27.9.1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. Gorakhpur. 2. The dispute relates to a shop in a house which is situated in Mohalla Dharamshala Bazar, Gorakhpur, the details whereof have been given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed shop'. 3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. 4. It was, inter-alia, stated in the release application that the petitioner w...
Brij Pal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC152
Pradeep Kant and G.K. Gupta, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Standing Counsel.2. This is an application for interim relief. Since counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, therefore, the petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties Counsel.3. The petitioner had filed a writ petition for considering and promoting him on the next higher pay scale of Rs. 16,400-20,000 and providing him all service benefits from the date the next juniors to him have been granted the said scale of pay.4. The High Court by means of interim order directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in which such a grievance has been raised. The State Government has decided the representation of the petitioner and order passed thereon has been filed, as Annexure-R.A.-l alongwith rejoinder- affidavit. This order is dated 30th July, 2002. In view of the aforesaid order all the poi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC209; 2004ACJ1889
M.P. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant.The insurer appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 8,56,511 as compensation to the claimants on account of the injuries sustained by the claimants in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a jeep No. UP 76-A 8607 insured with the present appellant.2. It is said that on 31.8.2000 at about 10 a.m. claimants Rahul Verma and Anuj Kumar Saxena had gone on a motor cycle No. UP 76-A 9218 when they met with the accident near Durga Temple in Civil Lines Police Station, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, on account of which they sustained injuries. Claimant-respondent No. 1 Rahul Verma received grievous injuries and his left leg was fractured. Respondent No. 2 Anuj Kumar Saxena received simple injuries. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are aged about 21 and 25 years respectively. The respondent No. 1 used to help his mother who is a Government contractor. Out of the earning she used to give Rs. 5,000 to...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC292
Yatindra Singh, J.1. Petitioner filed a case namely OA No. 2229 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (the CAT) for the relief that he may be granted salary from 2.1.1998 to 20.10.1998 and for grant of temporary status, under the DOPT scheme dated 10.9.1993. It was alleged in that application that the petitioner was forced to work as casual labour in the name of some body else. The CAT decided this OA on 9.12.1999. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was involved in doubtful activities. However a direction was issued to investigate the matter at higher level and it was further directed that in case the report was in favour of applicant then he would be reengaged. The inquiry of higher level was conducted and a report was made on 12.5.2000 and in view of the report the petitioner was not re-engaged. The petitioner filed a contempt application with the CAT alleging that its direction dated 9.12.1999 had not been obeyed. This contempt applicatio...
Cit Vs. Sardar Cloth House
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN256(All)
ORDERThis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by which following questions have been referred to US for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 187(2) were not applicable to the facts of the instant case?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order that two separate assessments be made in respect of the two returns filed?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. During this assessment year one of the partners of the assessee-firm Harbir Singh died on 10-8-1974. In the original partnership deed there is no mention that on the death of a partner the firm will continue in existence. Hence in view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, the firm stood automatically dissolved on the death of a partner. Hence, it is a case of dissolution of the firm and not reconstitution, and th...
Cit Vs. Kr. Anand Singh (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN834(All)
This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :R.A. No. 325 (All) 82'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the partial partition of the assessee-HUF on 7-2-1976 was entitled to be recognised under section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?R.A. No. 324 (All) 82Whether (if the answer to the above question be in the negative) the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,878 was interest paid to the minor children on the capital received by them on partial partition as also to Smt. Veena Singh on her 'Stridhan' and on the amount which she received on partition, was not includible in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year in question ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee made a claim for partial partit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »