Allahabad Court March 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.
Smt. Shashi Vs. State Election Commission (Panchayat and Local Bodies) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2144
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 1.1.2001 Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which election on the post of Member of Kshetriya Panchayat, Manda district Allahabad has been countermanded.2. It appears that 14 persons had filed their nominations for the aforesaid post but the Returning Officer rejected the nominations of 13 persons and thus declared the petitioner elected unopposed. The certificate was issued even after the date of the election.3. It seems that the returning officer was in collusion with the petitioner as he rejected all the nomination papers except that of the petitioner. According to the Latin Maxim res-ipsa-loquitur which means 'the thing speaks for itself' it is evident that there was collusion in this case. At any event, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ is a discretionary remedy and we are not inclined to exercise our discretion. The petitioner if so eligible may a...
Bal Kishan and ors. Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2170
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 25.7.1996 and 3.7.1999, Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 had filed Suit No. 1666 of 1983 in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur Nagar against the petitioners for permanent injunction for restraining them from interfering and from taking possession in any portion of premises No. 50/88 Hatia, Kanpur Nagar without partition and without clarifying the shares in the house in dispute. The application for temporary injunction filed along with the suit was rejected by the Munsif City, Kanpur Nagar, against which misc. appeal was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings of the suit restarted in the Court of Munsif City. 4. It is stated that the suit was transferred by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar from the Cou...
Jautam Alias Andhi and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4646
M.C. Jain, J.1. There are two appellants Jautam alias Andhi and Har Chand who have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-12-1981 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 97 of 1980. They have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two others, namely, Phool Chand and Daya Shanker alias Mahant were also tried with them, but they were acquitted having been given the benefit of doubt.2. The salient features of the case may be set forth. The incident took place on 23-9-1979 at about 11 O'clock in the night in village Fattupatti, Police Station Gambheerpur, District Azamgarh. The deceased was one Mool Chand. The FIR was lodged the following day at 7.10 a.m. by Khelawan P.W. 3 at whose house the deceased was allegedly sleeping in the fateful night. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was five miles. The prosecution case is that the deceased Mool Chand resided in the village aforesaid with...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC374; 2004ACJ1225
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the insurer appellant and Mr. J.J. Munir, the learned counsel for the claimant caveators.2. The appellant feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, determining a total amount of Rs. 2,42,726 (rupees two lakh forty-two thousand seven hundred and twenty-six only) as just compensation, to which the claimant Naresh Kumar was found entitled to on account of the grievous injury resulting in permanent disability caused in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, jeep insured by appellant covering the risk.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record, has come to the conclusion that the injured had a monthly income of Rs. 1,500. The Tribunal utilising the multiplier of 12 had calculated the amount of compensation. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal holding the disability to be only 73.5 per cent, taking into consi...
Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag and anr. Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC109
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-owner and Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents.2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the offending motor vehicle who was also the employer of the deceased who had met his untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle-a Road-Roller.3. The Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and material on record, had come to the conclusion that the deceased who was employed as a 'Meth' was crushed to death by a Road-Roller at the time of the accident which had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Road-Roller.4. Believing the deposition of the wife of the deceased, his income was held to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. It may be noticed that the present appellant-the employer without any justifiable reason had withheld the best evidence about the actual income of the deceased and did not produ...
Mukesh Kumar Suri Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1456
Janardan Sahai, J. 1. The Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut by order dated 13.2.2003 decreed the suit for eviction of the applicant from the shops in dispute. The suit was filed against the applicant who is the tenant of the shop on the ground of default. The applicant-tenant claimed that he had deposited the rent on the first date of hearing and was, therefore, relieved from the liability of eviction in view of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), hereafter called as the 'Act'. The suit was registered on 14.7.2000 and summons were issued indicating 10.8.2000 for filing written statement and 17.8.2000 for final hearing. On 17.8.2000 on the request of the defendant-applicant, time for filing written statement was extended. The written statement was not filed and the Court repeatedly extended the time and by the last such extension time till 1.3.2001 was granted for filing the written stat...
Raman Ispat (P.) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1672
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the U. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 24 of the U. P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 in Petition No. 7 of 2002.2. The appellant has challenged only that part of the order dated 22.10.2002 which is in respect of Clause 8 (a) of Rate Schedule rebate Clause of H.V.-2 category consumers. This impugned clause which relates to rebate, is as follows :'Rebate.-- (a) Load factor rebate.--For all consumption in excess of the defined K.V.A.H. per K.V.A. (of contracted demand) a rebate is provided on the energy charges for such excess consumption, as given in the above Table. This rebate will be available only on monthly basis. Consumer with arrears shall not be eligible for this rebate.'3. The portion of the rebate clause that 'the rebate shall not be applicable to the consumers who are in arrears' only is being assailed in this appeal on the ground that this contention imposed by the Commission ...
Modipon Fibres Co. Vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1674
N.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 36 of the U. P. Electricity Reforms Act. 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the decision of the U. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') respondent No. 1 dated 25.2.2003 passed in Review Petition No. 52 of 2002 filed by the appellant.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 at the admission of the appeal and on C. M. Application No. 131 of 2003 for interim relief.3. It appears that the appellant is an industry comes under H. V. 2 category and is covered under Tariff applicable to H. V. 2 category industries. The U. P. Power Corporation, respondent No. 2 is the licensee in the area of the appellant. The Commission is empowered under Section 24 of the Act for framing tariff for purchase, sales, supply, transmission of the electricity in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Commission issued Order under Section 24 of the Act on 22.10.2002 which wa...
C.T.K. Madhu Vs. Director General of Police, C.R.P.F. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1700; (2003)2UPLBEC1177
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri K. S. Rathor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Rai, Additional Standing Counsel of the Government of India, representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. The petitioner, who is a member of R.A.F. (Rapid Action Force) of 101 Battalion, aggrieved by the order dated 3rd January, 2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby his representation against the transfer order has been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the respondent No. 4, approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. From the perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the order of transfer. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent No. 1 to post the petitioner and his wife at the same station, who is also a member of the same Battalion, as they will now be separated because of the transfer of the petitioner....
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Aslam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC734; 2003(3)AWC1982; [2003(97)FLR683]
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant.2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act feeling aggrieved by the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determining an amount of Rs. 1,80,055 as compensation to which the injured workman was found entitled to on account of his having suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disablement while engaged as a driver of the offending motor vehicle holding further that the accident has actually arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the injured workman.3. It may be noticed that in support of his claim, the injured workman had examined himself as a witness and has placed reliance upon the various documentary evidences including the injury report and the X-ray report. He had also stated that he continued to remain under treatment for a period of eight months on account of the grievous injuries which he had suffered on his right hand ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »