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.
General Manager, Panki thermal Power Station and anr. Vs. Labour Commi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1048All; (2003)2UPLBEC1665
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-employer has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 64 of 1989 and Misc. Case No. 10/89 [6-F] dated July 30, 1999.2. The case set up by the employer is that they employed 118 workmen referred to in the schedule as contract labourer through the contractor, Vasudev and Company Limited. The respondent Union filed an application, before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 with the claim that they are performing the same and similar job as are being performed by other regularly appointed workmen, therefore, they are also entitled to the same wages as are being paid to the regular employees whereas in fact, they are getting Rs. 61.50/- per day as those regular workmen are getting Rs. 118.40/-per day. The Labour Commissioner before whom the afor...
Parmanand and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ968
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8-9-1981 passed by the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barielly in S. T. No. 79 of 1981 convicting the appellant Parmanand under Section 302 I. P. C. and appellant Hari Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :--Kundan Lal (50) deceased resident of village Siraura, P. S. Bhojipura, district Bareilly was real brother of Gendan Lal, the father of appellants Parmanand and Hari Ram. Gendan Lal had another son Hardwari. Kundan Lal had no male issue and had only one daughter named Smt. Nanhi, who was married with Ajudhia (P.W.1), resident of village Ashpur, P. S. Hafizganj, district Bareilly, Kundan Lal deceased was living separately from his brother Gendan Lal. Kundan Lal owned about 35 Bighas agricultural land, which was jointly recorded in his name and in the name of Gendan...
Ram Singh Yadav Vs. Commissioner/Director, Handloom and Technology Nid ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC1966
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 25549 of 2002. For the sake of convenience the writ petitions are being taken up chronologically. The petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 20229 of 2000 which was finally disposed off by this Court vide its order dated 2.5.2000 with the following directions:'Heard learned Counsel for the parties.With regard to his grievance the petitioner has already made a representation dated 16.12.1999, Anncxure-4 to the writ petition, before respondent.This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.'2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the representation filed by the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav was disposed off by impugned order dated 8.8.2000 and 31.5.2001, copies whereof have ...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2208
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The employer U.P. State Electricity Board aggrieved by an award of the Industrial Tribunal-IV. U.P., Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') dated 8th October, 1997, which was published on 8th June, 1998, passed in adjudication case No. 22 of 1993, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Anncxure-'12' to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication:-^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfednqxkZ izlkn iq= Jh Hkksyk falag] ykbu eSu dh lsok iqfLrdk esa tUe frfFk 1936 dLFkku ij 12-12-42 vafdr u fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/krJfed D;k fgrykHk@mi'k; ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS]fdl frfFk ls rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr **3. After receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, both employer as well as the workman have put in their written statement and also adduced evidence whatever they want to adduce. The case as set up by the w...
Ghazipur Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd. and anr. Vs. Presi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1751
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-employer challenging the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi dated 29th August, 1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 179 of 1989.2. The following dispute was referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court :^^D;klsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed jktsUnz izlkn frokjh] iq= cyHknz frokjh] 'kk[kk izcU/kddh lsok;sa fnukaad 21-8-87 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfprk rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k vuqrks'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS**3. After receipt of reference Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence before Labour Court. The case set up by the workman-respondent No. 2 is that he was appointed with the employer on 7th January, 1974 as Branch Manager and since then he was regularly working till 28th August, 1986 when he was suspended on the false allegations regarding embezzlement. No charge-sheet has been served on him;...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1817
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition and Writ Petition Nos. 29029, 29033 and 29152 of 2003, are being disposed off by a common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Vinod Misra for NOIDA.3. On 30.3.2002, a notification Under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire 779.55 Acres of land in Village Sadarpur, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA) for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Area (hereinafter referred to as the NOIDA). True copy of the notification is Annexure 1. The petitioners have alleged that they have their abadi in that area. It is alleged in Para 6 that although one year has passed no notification has been issued Under Section 6 and this shows that there was no urgency. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has issued a letter dated 29.12.81 to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA requesting him not to acquire abadi plots a...
Sheetala Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC1987
M. Katju, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order dated 17.2.2001, Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the Circular Letter dated 24.2.2001, Annexure-4 to the writ petition in so far as they direct merger of Rajkiya Tilakdhari Homeopathic Medical College, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as Jaunpur College) with Rajkiya Lal Bahadur Shastri Homeopathic Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Allahabad College) and transfer of students and teachers to the Allahabad College.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The Jaunpur College was a privately managed Homeopathic Medical College. The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in that College when the same was under private management. On 23.10.1981 the State Legislature enacted the U.P. Homeopathic Medical College (Acquisition and Misc. Provisions) Act, 1981 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As a consequence, t...
Janpad Auto Rickshaw Chalak Sangh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2302
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned bye-laws dated 28.6.1999 Annexure 3 to writ petition which were published in U.P. Gazette dated 20.5.2000. The petitioners also prayed that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be directed not to realize licence fee from Auto-Rickshaws and not to harass their operators in this connection.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Union of Auto-Rickshaw Operators Society and petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. It is alleged in Para 3 of the petition that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh respondent No. 4 has been in the habit of imposing illegal taxes on Auto-Rickshaws and hence a Writ Petition No. 543 of 2000 had been filed in this Court which was disposed of by judgment dated 11.7.2000 Annexure 1 to the petition. By that order petitioner was directed to make a representation to the Nagar Palika Parishad.3. In Para 4 of the petition it is stated that on 30.4.2001 the Chairman, Nagar Palika ...
Nanku Vs. Janardan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC437; 2005ACJ136
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal filed under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the order dated 5.11.1979 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad by which the application for condonation of delay has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a claim petition on 13.12.1978 under 'the Act' on the ground that on 14.12.1977 at about 4.45 p.m. on G.T. Road, Police Station, Handia, District Allahabad, he was severely injured in the accident caused by the minibus No. USS 1534 by rash and negligent driving. The limitation for filing the claim petition was six months from the date of accident under section 110-A of the Act. Since the claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application for the condonation of delay was filed along with an affidavit. In the affidavit it was explained that the applicant was confined to bed and there was no male member in the family to look after the work for filing of the claim petition and ...
Maya Tripathi Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC105
M. Katju, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RR. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.1990 (Annexure 1-A to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and the order dated 22.4.19991 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) rejecting her representation.3. As alleged in para 1 of the petition, the husband of the petitioner was insured with Life Insurance Corporation for Rs. 50,000/- under TT 88-25 and the policy was made effective from 18.11.1985. It is alleged that the policy was taken when the husband of the petitioner was not suffering from any serious disease. However, he died on 29.10.19087. The petitioner claimed for compensation under the policy but the application was rejected by the order dated 31.3.1990. The petitioner's representation was also rejected by order dated 22.4.1991. Hence this petition.4. A counter affidavit has been fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »