Allahabad Court April 2003 Judgments
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Payment of Wages Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ519All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the validity and correctness of the orders dated December 31, 1993 and July 31, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the claim of respondents-workmen Nos. 2 to 7 regarding payment of deducted wages and order dated July 21, 1994 rejecting the restoration application/recall application of the petitioner.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondents 2 to 7 were engaged on daily wage basis in the department/farm of the petitioner. They were not paid their wages with effect from December 1992 to August 1993. The respondents filed claim application under Section 15(2) read with Section 16(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the respondent No. 1 praying that the authority may recover the deducted wages of the workers with ten times penalty and the same be paid to them. Notices were issued on...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer and Asstt. Labour Commissioner and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2671
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition has been filed by the State of U. P. challenging the validity and correctness of the orders dated 31.12.1993, and 31.7.1994, passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the claim of respondents-workman Nos. 2 to 7 regarding payment of deducted wages and order dated 21.7.1994 rejecting the restoration application/recall application of the petitioner,3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondents 2 to 7 were engaged on daily wage basis in the department/farm of the petitioner. They were not paid their wages with effect from December, 1992 to August 1993. The respondents filed claim application under Section 15(2) read with Section 16(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the respondent No. 1 praying that the authority may recover the deducted wages of the workers with ten times penalty and the same be paid to them. Notices were issued on 13.9.1993...
Tag this Judgment!Palak Dhari (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2773
ORDERS. K. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel, who appeared for the respondents.2. Present writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the Consolidation Commissioner/ respondent No. 1 dated 7.5,1992 and 20.5.1992 (Annexures-6 and 8 respectively). It appears that Appeal No. 455 Palak Dhari v. Devi Prasad relating to village Azampur, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh was pending before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation of the district Azamgarh. In view of the facts as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that earlier on his application, the appeal was transferred from one officer to another in the same district, which was confirmed up to this Court but thereafter on application for transfer having been moved by the respondents before the respondent No. 1 pending appeal was directed to be transferred from district Azamgarh to district Ghazipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Ojha Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1325
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. The petitioner is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. In this case on 28.3.2003 the Standing Counsel was granted three weeks to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. Thereafter on 23.4.2003 he was again granted one week's time to file a counter affidavit, but as yet no counter affidavit is forthcoming. We are not inclined to grant any further time. Hence, we are treating the allegations made in the writ petition to be correct.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned notices dated 22.4.1999 and 3.7.2000 (Annexures '6' and '9' to the writ petition) issued by the Allahabad Development Authority. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus commanding the Allahabad Development Authority to execute the sale deed regarding premises No.AD-6, Ekanki Kunj, A.D.A. Colony, 24, Muir Road, Allahabad, constructed under Self-Financing Housing Scheme on the price of land already paid before possession.3. In paragraph 2 of t...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Kauser Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1404
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30th December, 2002 by which the application of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay him the gratuity pension commuting valued of pension together with appropriate dearness allowance obtainable since 1993 to December, 1995 and consolidated pension of Rs. 5129/- per month with interest. He also claimed for some other relief.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner stood retired from service as Assistant Branch Officer on 30th June, 1993 and was paid the retrial benefit as admissible to him according to the Rules. Petitioner raised the dispute before the learned Tribunal that pension and other retrial benefits should have been determined and paid to him taking dearness allowances with pay as has been paid to other retirees who retired after 1.1.1996. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Agrawal Rolling Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC258(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These two revisions relate to assessment years 1979-80 and 1978-79 respectively. These revisions arise out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The opposite-party is a dealer and deals in the manufacture and sale of sheets and circles made out of non-ferrous metal. The disclosed turnover was accepted by the assessing officer. Notices issued under Section 21 of the Act for taxing the turnover at higher rate with regard to sales made to certain customers was discharged by the assessing officer ; but the said order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) in exercise of power under Section 10-B of the Act on the finding that the dealer has not been able to show that the sales made by it to certain dealers were for the purposes of manufacture of brassware. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) concluded that in respect of certain sales of sheets and circles, the dealer could not produce the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajay Dal Mill
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(All)674; [2003]263ITR66(All)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, wherein the following questions have been framed :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding regarding revised return dated October 15, 1976, having been filed before detection of discrepancy by the Income-tax Officer was perverse in view of such discrepancy having been pointed out by the Income-tax Officer on an earlier date, namely, September 10, 1976 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question of the provisions of the Explanation below Section 271(1)(c) being attracted in the case had to be decided not with reference to the income declared as per the original return, but with reference to the income declared as per the revised return ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Madnani Construction Corporation (P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR107(All); 2003(4)AWC2624
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. Is the decision of a party to an arbitration contract about non-arbitrability of a dispute (excepted matters under the contract) final between the parties? At what stage, can objections regarding non-arbitrability of a dispute be taken? These are some of the interesting questions involved in this case.FACTS2. Northern Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur (the Railways) was constructing bridge over Kosi river. They entered into contract on 3rd November, 1981 with Madnani Construction Corporation (Pvt.) Limited (the contractor) for constructing bridge island Nos. 13 and 14. There were special conditions in the contract (the S.C.C.) and it states that General Conditions of Contract and standard specification of the Northern Eastern Railways (the G.C.C.) shall form a part of this contract. This construction was to be completed by 15th February, 1982. After completion, some payments were made to the contractor but were received by him under protest. The contractor served a notic...
Tag this Judgment!Damber Singh Vs. Mukhya Vikas Adhikari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2668
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.2. The petitioner, Dambar Singh, approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1984, which had been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 4th December, 1984. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority passed under the provisions of U. P. Kshettra Samltis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, whereby the licensing authority under the impugned order has granted licence to the Gaon Sabha to hold a cattle market on Friday. The Division Bench relying upon the decision of the Special Leave (Civil) No. 5O72 of 1980, Ram Ballabh Tewari v. Sunder Singh and Ors., which had been filed against the decision of this Court dated 20th June, 1960 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 467 of 1978 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2211
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27948 of 1999. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to join B.T.C. training course in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 8.3.1998. The aforesaid advertisement had been issued in pursuance of the Government Order dated 9.1.1998 whereby it was provided that only those candidates who had obtained C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed./L.T., D.P. Ed., B.Ed. degrees/certificates from within the State of Uttar Pradesh would alone be qualified to apply.3. Admittedly, the appellants have obtained B.Ed. degrees from the State of Madhya Pradesh and not from any College/University within the State of Uttar Pradesh....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »