Allahabad Court February 2003 Judgments
Shree Prakash Sharma and ors. Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Gram ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1866
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. The only controversy involved in the present writ petitions is about the age of retirement of an employee of U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank (now known as U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited). According to the petitioners, it is 60 years while according to the respondents, the age of superannuation is 58 years.2. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the instant writ petition, joined the service of the U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited on 26th July, 1969, 24th July, 1968, 14th July, 1969 and 18th July, 1909, respectively. According to the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment, their service conditions were governed by the U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Staff Rules, 1964. Rule 46 of the said Rules provides that an employee shall retire at the age of 60 years.3. The State Government under Section 122 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act constituted the U. P. Cooperative Society Institution Board which ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Class Iv Employees Association, High Court of Judica ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC27
S. P. Srivastava and K. N. Ojha, JJ. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition giving rise to this appeal in part, which had been filed by the Class IV Employees Association High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another and issuing a direction to the respondents, which included the present appellants, requiring them to pay salary in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1,660 to all those class IV employees employed in the establishment of the High Court who had been put in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 and the salary in the time scale of pay Rs. 1,000-1,750 to all such class IV employees who had been put in the pay scale of Rs. 725-1,025 without affecting in any manner the allowances which they were presently getting and further directing that the revised pay scale shall be made available to the class IV employees of this Court w.e.f. 1.7.1994 and so far as the arrears part was concerned it was directed that the same be paid onl...
Tag this Judgment!Babban Alias Babbu Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2715
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Babban alias Babbu has impugned the order dated 11th June 2002 passed by the second opposite party Mr. Hemant Rao, District Magistrate, Moradabad detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 11th June 2002 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-6-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to this petition.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, Since, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the basis of the averments contained in paragraph-17 of the petition and ground-K of paragraph-21 thereof, and for the decision thereof, reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary, we are not adverting to them.The averments contained in ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Srivastava and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1105
M. Katju , J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned seniority list dated 2.1.2003 Annexure-2 to the writ petition issued by the State of U.P. communicated by means of letter dated 6.1.2003 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and also the reversion order dated 6.10.2003 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing that respondents should not interfere in the working as Prosecution Officer and should paid them salary accordingly.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The appointments on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer was earlier made under the Police Department in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in which power was given to the State Government by Section 25 for making such appointments. Subsequently the U.P. (Appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officer) Rules, 1974 were framed for the purpose of making such appointments Rule 4 thereof provides that a...
Tag this Judgment!Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Prabhu NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All223; 2004(1)CTLJ400(All)
ORDERJanardan Sahai, J. 1. The facts of this case are simple. The defendant applicant M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking, which provides transport services to parties exporting their goods. It appears that the applicants had entered into a contract with M/s. Bhola Nath Industry, Varanasi for transporting their woollen yarn through the container services of the applicants to Bombay. The applicants engaged M/s. Vijai Trading & Transporting Company, the first defendant whose proprietor, D.S. Mishra is the second defendant for carrying the goods in the container. M/s. Vijai Training & Transport Company in turn had taken the services of the plaintiff Prabhu Narain Singh, proprietor of M/s. O.D.C. Roadways for transporting these goods. 2. A dispute about the payment of hire charges arose between the plaintiff and M/s. Vijai Training & Transport Company. The plaintiff Prabhu Narain Singh who is the opposite party No. 1 in this revision filed a suit for i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hind Lamps Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)342
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act has been filed against the impugned order of the Income-tax Tribunal dt. 18th Dec., 2000, vide Annexure 3 to the appeal.The main point pressed by the learned counsel for the Department is that the amount of Rs. 9,82,426 was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal under Section 36(i) and (ii) or Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This question has been discussed in para 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It appears that in the year 1978 the workers of the assessee went on strike and the factory was closed for almost a month. When finally the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh intervened, an agreement was reached, whereby certain amount was to be paid over and above the statutory bonus, Thereafter every year the workmen demanded twenty per cent bonus, which was the maximum limit under the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Thereafter, also the assessee was paying to the workmen bonus above the amount legally payable under Payment of Bonus Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4087
K.N. Ojha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against orders of conviction and sentence dated 24-3-1981, passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in ST. No. 41 of 1980, State v. Sheo Chandra Singh, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo, imprisonment for life. 2. According to prosecution, the occurrence did take place on 15-12-1979 at 12-00 a.m. noon. The FIR was lodged on the same, day at, 3-30 p.m. at police station Bindhnu, District Kanpur, which is at the distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence. FIR was lodged by Sarju Singh containing the fact that his son Udai Bhan Singh had gone to field to irrigate land from canal in Bhainsahi Har of village Kalyani Purwa on. 15-12-1979. At about 12.00 noon when he was preparing Nali, appellant Sheo Chandra Singh, resident of his village went there and raised objection. He insisted that he would irrigate the land. Exchange of hot talk did take place when Chandra Bhan S...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Gas Cylinders Limited Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC482(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the notices dated June 28, 1993 and June 29, 1993 under Section 29-A the of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now U.P. Trade Tax Act), for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, annexures 7A and 7B to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed that the refundable amount for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, which has been refunded to the Indian Oil Corporation, should be adjusted towards the admitted tax liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-90.3. The facts of the case are covered by a division Bench decision of this Court between the same parties in Pankaj Gas Cylinders Ltd. v. State of U.P. in W.P. No. 380 of 1992 decided on October 19, 1995 by honourable V.N. Khare and honourable R. Dayal, JJ. followed the earlier decision of this Court in Korea (India) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 36 ; 1995 UPTC 605 vide annexures RA2 and RA3 to the rejoinder-affidavit.4. Following the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Hind Lamps Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN586(All)
ORDERThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed against the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18-12-2000 vide Annexure 3 to the appeal.The main point pressed by the learned counsel for the department is that the amount of Rs. 9,82,426 was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal under section 36(c) and (ii) or section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This question has been discussed in paragraph 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It appears that in the year 1978 the workers of the assessee went on strike and the factory was closed for almost a month. When finally the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh intervened, an agreement was reached, whereby certain amount was to be paid over and above the statutory bonus. Thereafter every year the workmen demanded twenty per cent bonus, which was the maximum limit under the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Thereafter, also the assessee was paying to the workmen bonus above the amount legally payable...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. District Deputy Director, Consolidation/Colle ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC868
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel representing the State authorities. Since controversy involved in this petition lies in a narrow compass, both the counsel agreed to the disposal of the petition at the motion hearing stage. 2. Petitioners in the instant petition claim themselves to be the recipient of the land from Bhoodan Yojna Committee, Etah under Section 14 of the U. P. Bhoodan Act, 1952 the pattas in respect of which were alleged to have been executed in the year 1988-89. The validity of the order impugned herein purporting to have been passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been canvassed on the ground that it has been passed in a most secretive and clandestine manner ostensibly on the basis of some reports and no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to any of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »