Allahabad Court February 2003 Judgments
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1312; [2003(97)FLR202]; (2003)IILLJ793All; (2003)1UPLBEC890
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of the instant petition, the employer, i.e., Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Ghosi, Mau has canvassed the validity of the impugned award dated 30.1.1997 which was published on 1.10,1997. From a perusal of the impugned order, the quintessence of what has been held by the labour court is that theworkman had worked for three years in unbroken continuity and that his services were dispensed with without any notice or payment of any compensation as contemplated in law notwithstanding the fact that there was not a vestige of allegation against the workman.2. The facts beyond the pale of controversy are that workman entered the service as watchman on 15.2.1983 on daily wage basis. He worked unhindered upto 22.4.1986 and thereafter, he was retrenched. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred by reference dated 17.6.1987 to the labour court for adjudication. The labour court rendered its award which was published on 1.10.1997 as stated supra.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Ram Verma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1662; (2003)2UPLBEC1726
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question :'In absence of applicability of Evidence Act to departmental enquiries, on what basis the concepts of 'admissibility' or 'relevancy' of evidence can be imported into departmental enquiry?'2. The question referred to above arises on the facts given below :'The State of U.P. implemented the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission Report from 1.1.1996. This report provided that the pay scale of the Government employee shall be fixed on new pay scales. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 6.9.1997 addressing to the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow, wherein it was stated that the pay scale of Tehsildars/Apar Tehslldars is being enhanced in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 and in the like manner, the pay scales of Naib Tehsildars being Rs. 1,400-2,300 is being enhanced at Rs. 1,640-2,900. In view of the said Government Order, respondent No. 2 issued ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ470; AIR2003All234
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard counsel for petitioner.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 9th Additional District Judge, Muzaffer Nagar has by its order dated 28-10-2002, allowed application filed by Claimant respondent No. 2 Tej Pal Singh under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling order dated 19-12-2000 in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed in default on 19-12-1997, and has restored Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 to its original number. The said order dated 28-10-2002, is under challenge in this writ petition.3. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Nanhi Bal v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banda, 1996 Ace CJ 1153 : (1996 AIHC 3361) holding that all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable before the Tribunal and that only the provisions, specified under Rule 21 of U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padma Pathak Vs. Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1991; [2003(97)FLR685]
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner, widow of Suresh Chandra Pathak, claims appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme for employment of the dependents of the employees dying-in-harness (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme').2. It transpires from the record that the petitioner's husband died on 6.4.1999 leaving behind four minor children and petitioner and on 20.4.1999, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on the ground that she had no source of livelihood to fall back upon. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 30.9.2000, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is impugned in the writ petition. The laconic ground spelt out in the order is that the application of the petitioner did not find favour with (he authorities.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order does not contain any reason. It has not disclosed why and how petitioner was not found fit for appointment under the scheme. He further urged that she has no...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Saxena Vs. Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR668]; (2003)IIILLJ602All; (2003)1UPLBEC802
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated December 15, 2001 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated February 1, 2002 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. By the order dated December 15, 2001, the respondent No. 2 has advised the disciplinary authority to consider the matter de novo for fresh enquiry and pursuant thereof by the order dated February 1, 2002, the respondent No. 1 has directed for re-enquiry in the case.2. Heard Sri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned advocate who appears for respondents. Affidavits exchanged between the parties have been perused.3. Brief facts of the case for the purposes of decision can be summarised. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Accountant/Cash Clerk in the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the bank). At the time when the petitioner was posted as identifie...
Tag this Judgment!Tanuj Kumar Verma Vs. Director, Defence Estate, Central Command and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC729
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Resolution No. 18 passed by the Cantonment Board, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in its meeting date 18.12.2002 and also the consequential dated 19.12.2002 issued by then Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Varanasi (Annexures 20 to 22 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as Accountant in the Board.2. At the time of filing of the writ petition itself, all the respondents appeared and they took time to file counter-affidavit. On filing counter-affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made statement that he do not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the matter may be heard and decided, upon which, arguments were heard and as prayed, it is being decided.3. Brief facts, for the purpose of decision can be summarised. The petitioner was initially appointed as Juni...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Budhwati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ278
M.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the insurer appellant. Appellant feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 as just compensation, to which the claimant was found entitled on account of the untimely death of the deceased Ram Bhajan in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle insured by the present insurer appellant.2. The only submission which is urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that there was a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued covering the risk. His contention is that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by a person who had no valid licence.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against it by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid findings, however, could not be demonstrated to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Coal Depot Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC16(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. As prayed by counsel for both parties the revision is being disposed of finally.2. This revision has been filed against the order dated January 20, 2003 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-V, Varanasi.3. Facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are assessment order dated March 28, 1989 was passed by Sales Tax Officer-1, Mirzapur. Appeal was filed by the revisionist against the assessment order which was partly allowed by the order dated July 31, 1989 reducing the tax liability up to the extent of Rs. 1,03,800. Second Appeal No. 99 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) and second appeal No. 127 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) was filed by the assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal. February 2, 2002 was the date fixed in the second appeal which date was noted by counsel for appellant, but no one appeared on February 2, 2002 at the time of hearing. The second ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Additional District and Sessions J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC594
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Counsel for petitioner.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/9th Additional District Judge, Muzaffer Nagar has by its order dated 28.10.2002, allowed application filed by claimant respondent No. 2 Tej Pal Singh under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for recalling order dated 19.12.2000 in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed in default on 19.12.1997, and has restored Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 to its original number. The said order dated 28.10.2002, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Nanhi Bai and Ors. v. Motor, Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda and Ors. , holding that all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable before the Tribunal and that only the provisions, specified under Rule 21 of U.P. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967, are applicable. Neit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratan Lal Garib Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]261ITR200(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to assess the income of the periods separately ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was not the case of mere change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The assessee is a firm. The relevant assessment year, in the present case is 1979-80. There were 19 partners in the said firm and one of them Sri Sunder Lal retired. Under the partnership deed the partnership would stand dissolved on the death or retirement of a partner. Hence, the assessee filed two returns, one for the period April 1, 1978, to July 29, 1978, and the other for the period September 21, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »