Allahabad Court January 2003 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.
Shubhra Chaturvedi (Dr.) (Km.) Vs. Director of Education (Higher Educa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC680
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.C. Tripathi and learned Standing Counsel.2. In this case, on 23.5.2000, learned Standing Counsel was granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit and notice was issued to the respondent No. 3, but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. We are not inclined to grant any further time to learned Standing Counsel as already sufficient time has been granted to him.3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.12.99, Annexure-6 to the writ petition by which her selection by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as Lecturer in Education has been cancelled by the Director of Higher Education.4. The petitioner's academic record is mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The petitioner has done Ph.D., NET and M.Ed. Thus, she was fully qualified for being selected. The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission has selected the petitioner vide Select List, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petit...
Madan Mohan Gupta Vs. Ranni and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC331
S.P. Srivastava, A.C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant, who is the owner of the offending motor vehicle, a truck, feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitrakoot, dated 12.11.2002, in M.A.C. No. 118/70-1997, determining an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rs. one lakh and seventy-five thousand) to be the just compensation to which the dependent of the deceased, the claimant, was found entitled to on account of the death of the sole bread-winner in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned by the Tribunal against the appellant. The Tribunal, after a careful consideration of the evidence as brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the offending motor vehicle - the truck - owned by the present appellant, was involved in the accident and the claim of the appellant to the contrary was false. It has also been found that the deceased...
Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3927
K.N. Sinha, J.1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18-10-2002 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998 dismissing the appeal in default.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision is that the revisionist, Man Singh, was tried by 4th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for the offence under Sections 297, 338, 427 and 304A, IPC and convicted for the said offence. The trial Court also awarded sentences for the aforesaid offences. The revisionist filed criminal appeal against the said order which was pending in the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura being criminal appeal No. 10 of 1998. On 18-10-2002, the appeal was dismissed in default.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the criminal appeal cannot be dismissed in default but it should have been decided on merit. Sections 381 to 386, Cr.P.C. and onwards contain vario...
Singer India Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR690]; (2003)2UPLBEC1058
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This writ petition along with Writ Petition No. 4262 of 2003 was heard at length and dismissed on 21.1.2003. Due to paucity of time, the reasons could not be dictated in Court. The detailed reasons for which no interference is required to be made in the matter, are given as below.2. Km. Madhu Chauhan, Respondent No. 3 in Writ: Petition No. 12360 of 2001, was engaged as lady demonstrator by M/s. Singer India Limited at its Shop No. 2, Rajendra Market, Agra on 9.3.1995. She was required to give information of the various sewing machines, including 'fashion maker', to the customers and to train them for operating the machine. She was also required to sell the machines prepare cash memos maintain hire purchase accounts and prepare various other documents, as required by the company; and to carry out other works according to the directions of the Manager of the shop. She was made permanent on 1.9.1995 and that on 1.5.1995, she was designated as sales representative. Her ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ865; AIR2003All245; 2003(2)AWC1161b
S.P. Srivastava, A.C.J.1. I have had the opportunity to go through the judgment in draft prepared by my learned brother, Ashok Bhushan, J. I agree that this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be dismissed. However, I would like to add a few words.2. The legislative policy underlying the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly indicates that the right to appeal contemplated under Section 173 of the said Act, so far as the insurer is concerned, is not an absolute right but has been made subject to certain conditions. The statute does not recognise or provide for any remedy to an insurer against an award, if the requisite conditions are not satisfied. In its decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. JT 2002 (7) SC 251, the Apex Court had clearly indicated that in the absence of the grant of permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not open to an insurer to...
Pran Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2721
M.C. Jain, J. 1. The appellant is one Pran Singh who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by Sri R.R. Jatava, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur by judgment dated 22-9-1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1980. One Smt. Omwati alias Gundela Wall wife of Ayodhya Prasad was also tried with him under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 120B, I.P.C., but she was acquitted.2. Draped in brevity, the facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased Bihari was the material uncle of the appellant Pran Singh (hereinafter referred to as accused). The incident took place on 28-8-1979 at about 1 p.m. in village Teli Pahari, P.S. Mahob Kanth. District Hamirpur. The report was lodged by Chhavirani PW 1 (wife of the deceased) at the concerned police station on the same day at 4.10 pm. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 3 kms. The deceased had transferred 4 Bighhas of land to the accused out...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)572
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this Court at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the depreciation, which was not a liability shown in the balance sheet should be deducted while valuing the unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the WT Rules, 1958 ?'2. the assessee is an. HUF and the assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee held certain shares in M/s J.K. Jute Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur/The assessee claimed that while valuing the shares of the aforesaid company under Rule 1D of the WT Rules, deduction should be allowed for unprovided depreciation, The WTO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that only such deductions could be allowed which are provided for under the aforesaid Rule 1D. In appeal before the AAC, the contention of the assessee was accepted. The judgment of the AAC was confirmed in further appeal before the Tribu...
Cwt Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN74(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.The following question of law has been referred to this court at the instance of the revenue :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the depreciation, which was not a liability shown in the balance sheet should be deducted while valuing the unquoted shares under rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1958 ?'2. The assessee is a HUF and the assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee held certain shares in M/s. J.K. Jute Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur. The assessee claimed that while valuing the shares of the aforesaid company under rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, deduction should be allowed for unprovided depreciation. The Wealth Tax Officer did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that only such deductions could be allowed which are provided for under the aforesaid rule 1D. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the contention of the assessee was accepted. The judgmen...
Krishna Mohan @ Krishna Kumar Srivastava Vs. Motor Accident Tribunal a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC361
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Motor (Accidents Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the claimant appellant.2. The appellant Krishna Mohan @ Krishna Kumar Srivastava had filed a claim petition alleging that he met with an accident on 21.2.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. near Hydle crossing by Jeep No. UHX 272 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver Bhagwati Prasad in which he received serious injuries. Abdul Hai, respondent No. 2 is alleged to be the owner of the vehicle. The claimant appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,75,530.60 towards medical expenses and damages, etc.3. Abdul Hai filed written statement denying the fact that he was the owner of the vehicle in question. It was alleged that he sold the vehicle in question on 19.11.1987 in favour of Imtiyaz son of Abdul Razzak. He also denied the factum of the accident. The driver of the vehicle did not file any written statement.4. The Tribunal vide its or...
Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC536
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This writ petition was filed through a counsel of this Court. The petitioner, however, has chosen to argue it in person. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension of Havaldar Group 'A'with arrears and medical disability pension of real condition of his knee and soldier and C.B.I., Investigation to give all the correct report and representation dated 23.9.1998 and further to grant any writ, or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. Sri A.K. Sinha, standing counsel was heard for Union of India.3. The facts in brief are that petitioner Ex-Havaldar No. 14675948 Ramesh Kumar Mishra was enrolled in the Army on 25.9.1976 in the apprentices category. He was transferred to men's service on 30.8.1978 in the trade of instrument mechanic group 'B', and promoted to the rank of N.K., Group 'B' with effect from 1.1.1988. He passed diploma upon which he was re-mustered from Gro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »