Allahabad Court July 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.
Moti Lan and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ950
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. Appellants Motilal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Amar Singh, Dhunnan Singh, Sharda Singh, Miyadi alias Ram Miyadi Singh and Anil Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 11-6-2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Deoria in Session Trial No. 184 of 1995, convicting all the appellants under Sections 148 IPC, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, 452 and 427 IPC and sentencing appellants Motilal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Amar Singh and Dhunnan Singh to death and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. R.I. for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, RI for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 452 IPC, RI for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-each under Section 427 IPC and RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were fur...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1428
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant.2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 as just compensation to which the dependants of the deceased were found entitled to on account of his untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a bus bearing registration No. UP 13 B-8982 which has been insured by the present appellant covering the risk.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record had come to the conclusion that the grievous injuries were caused Jo the claimant in the accident. His big toe of the left leg had been completely destroyed and the two small toes of the left leg adjoining the big toe were amputated. An iron rod had been inserted in the left leg which had been broken in the accident. The extent of...
U.S. Sinha (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2213
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present case depicts a sorry State of Government's mind and approach. It is revealed from the facts available that what a shabby manner the State is running its administration. The officers of the State instead of resolving the problems and performing their duties, have tried to make the situation more complex for extraneous considerations. They had been ex facie exhibiting malice and partnership'. It is a case of tug of war between two officials of a distinguished medical college of the State. The State administration apparently is divided into two lobbies, each taking positive sides with the errant teacher and staff member. Nobody appears to take any interest towards the ailing patients who rush to such colleges for the amelioration of their medical crisis.2. The writ petition has been filed by the officiating Principal of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad challenging the suspension order dated 24.6.2003 on various grounds, including mala fides against R...
Bata Sheo Store and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2266
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner-employer, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the award dated 6th May, 1999, published on the Notice Board on 25th October, 1999 (Annexure '19' to the writ petition), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-1, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 36 of 19982. Following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk viuslEcfU/kr Jfed Jh ih-ds- pVthZ iq= Jh ih-ds- pVthZ dh lsok;sa fnukad3&2&97 ls ?kjsyw tkap ds vk/kkj ij lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed fdl fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr **3. After the notices were issued by the Tribunal, the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced the evidence. It is admitted case of the parties that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the workman, a compromise has been entered into between the workman and the employer-petition...
Rajeev Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Two ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1754
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for direction to the respondents to appoint them as Assistant Teachers in Rural Primary Schools as well as for quashing the Notification dated 14/15.8.2001, issued by the Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, Lucknow, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. The brief facts of the case are that in year 2001 a number of writ petitions were filed challenging the advertisement dated 14.8.2001, which were heard and decided by this Court vide order dated 21.3.2002, by which the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 and the Government Order dated 3.8.2001 were quashed. The leading writ petition was Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001.4. Against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 a number of special appeals were filed, which were decided by order dated 23.11.2002 quashing the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 by maintaining the advertisement dated 14.8....
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC1983
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The employer-U.P. State Electricity Board has challenged the award of the Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur dated 29th April, 1994 passed in Adjudication Case No. 277 of 1993 by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court (I), Kanpur for adjudication:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk JfedfojsUnz dqekj cktis;h] iq= Jh jke vorkj cktis;h dks fnukad 31&3&87 lsdk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfudgS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] fdlfrfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk ** 3. The employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their pleadings and also adduced evidence. For the purposes, of decision of this writ petition, the facts which are not disputed are that the petitioner-employer have engaged the concerned workman on an application being made by the respondent No. 2 as Apprentice and after the expiry of the period of Apprenticeship, his services...
Bhuwaneshwar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2496
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has claimed the following reliefs :'(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix seniority of the petitioner alongwith the candidates of 1989-90 session of Sub-Inspector, all consequential benefits.(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give all benefits after fixing his seniority from 1989-90 session.(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the difference of the salary as the arrear with penal interest.(iv) To issue any such other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.(v) To award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner.'3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition ...
Jaspal Timber Mart Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST170(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. These three revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in three connected appeals Nos. 304 of 1992 (assessment year 1984-85), 305 of 1992 (Assessment year 1985-86) and 306 of 1992 (assessment year 1986-87).The applicant is a dealer of timber. For the assessment year 1984-85 original assessment order was passed on November 7, 1988. The account books were rejected and the gross turnover was fixed at Rs. 58,562 and the taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 29,000. In the assessment year 1985-86 the contention of the assessee was accepted and was declared non-taxable by the order dated December 28,1989. For the assessment year 1986-87 in the original assessment proceedings the net turnover was fixed at Rs. 80,000 by the order dated October 24, 1989.2. Subsequently the department initiated the assessment proceedings for two assessment years, namely, 1984-85 and 1985-86 on the basis of information received that the applicant has imported tim...
Wig Brothers (Builders and Engineers) (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CompLJ328(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from levying or collecting any cess under the Research and evelopment Cess Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as 'the Cess Act') in respect of payments made and to be made by the petitioner No. 1, Wig Brothers (Builders and Engineers) (P) Ltd. to Heit-Camp and/or Balcke Durr (German Companies) under the collaboration agreement dated 28.11.1989 between Heit-Kampt and the Petitioner No. 1. Petitioners also prayed for declaring the levy and collection of cess under the Cess Act on payments made by the petitioner No. 1 to Heit Kampt and/or Balcke Durr as ultra vires the Cess Act and the rules made thereunder. Petitioners have also prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 22.7.1991 under Rule 6 of the rules to the petitioner by respondent No. 3. They have also prayed for declaring Section 2(h) of the Act as ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and Rule 3 of the rules as ultra vire...
Kunwar Pal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2851
ORDERM. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. The petitioner has prayed for mandamus restraining the public from installing the statue of Dr. Ambedkar on the gram panchayat land. We see no reason to issue any such mandamus. Dr. Ambedkar has been a respected leader of the country and we can see no objection in installing a statue of Dr. Ambedkar. 2. Petition is dismissed. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »