Allahabad Court September 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.
Upendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ320All
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. We have carefully perused the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated June 10, 2003 and find no infirmity in the same. The learned single Judge has discussed the matter in detail and we fully agree with the reasoning given by him. If a department, a factory or an establishment is closed down, there is no legal principle that the employee has a right to get alternative employment. No doubt, the loss of a job of an employee causes great hardship to his family, but a writ cannot be issued on the basis of hardship. Some error of law or illegality has to be demonstrated before a writ can be issued.3. It may be mentioned that in a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show that there is equity in his favour, but he has also to show that there is law in his favour. Unless both are in his favour, a writ will not be issued. The appellant cannot claim a writ merely because equity is in his favour. This is a well settled principle of exerci...
Upendra Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC112
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.6.2003 and find no infirmity in the same. The learned single Judge has discussed the matter in detail and we fully agree with the reasoning given by him. If a department, a factory or an establishment is closed down, there is no legal principle that the employee has a right to get alternative employment. No doubt, the loss of a job of an employee causes great hardship to his family, but a writ cannot be issued on the basis of hardship. Some error of law or illegality has to be demonstrated before a writ can be issued.3. It may be mentioned that in a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show that there is equity in his favour, but he has also to show, that there is law in his favour...Unless, both are in his favour, a writ will not be issued. The appellant cannot claim a writ merely because equity is in his favour. This is a ...
Moradabad Chartered Accountants Association and anr. Vs. Central Board ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(All)671; [2003]264ITR374(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned circular dated March 8, 1994, annexure 1, to the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered body representing the Moradabad Chartered Accountants. Petitioner No. 2 is a practicing advocate on the tax side at the Allahabad High Court.3. The petitioners have filed this petition as a public interest litigation on behalf of the professional people who render services, e.g., lawyers, chartered accountants, legal advisers, doctors, engineers, architects, consultants, etc., who receive payment from persons who need their services and pay remuneration to them.4. Section 194C was introduced in the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1972, making provision for deduction of tax at source on payment to contractors or sub-contractors in certain cases.5. The aforesaid provision was amended from time to time and various circulars were issued by the Cent...
Smt. Jamilun-nisha Vs. Ishhaq Ahmad Alias Raju and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3222
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 1 of 2002 by which the Additional District Judge, has refused to grant injunction against the respondent in favour of appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent, their servants, agents, dealers, representation and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendant from using trade mark 'Madam' and reproducing any of the artistic features of the plaintiffs label filed with the plaint and marked as 'A' under the Copyright Act, 1957 under title 'Madam' including the design, get up, lay out, placement, colour combination etc. And from using the impugned label/packing amount to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright under title Madam under the Copyright Act, 1957.3. The admitted case of the plaintiff appellant is that he was carry...
Smt. Saraswati Devi Vs. Jaisawal Oil Traders and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC276; 2003(4)AWC3446
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. The present appeal under Section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the order dated 10.2.1982 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 10 of 1981 between Smt. Saraswati Devi and Jaisawal Oil Traders, Ghazipur by which the claim petition was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed under the Act claiming a sum of Rs. one lac towards compensation on the ground that on 12.1.1981 her son Vinod Kumar who was aged about 18 years and was student of Class XII was crushed to death due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tanker No. U.T.H. 2372 belonging to M/s. Jaisawal Oil Traders which was insured by the National Insurance Company. It was alleged that Vinod Kumar was returning towards village on cycle from Chaubepur and the tanker came behind and crushed him causing death. The death had occurred due to only rash and negligent driving of the drive...
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Prabha Kirana Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All82
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9-11-1981 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1981 arising from the Original Suit No. 165 of 1976.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract No. GP/ Cont/GCS/75-E/95 dated 6-5-1975 for the direction to the appellant to purchase the good specified in annexure No. 1 to the affidavit during the period from 6-5-1975 to 3-5-1976 and for rendition of accounts. The suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent was registered pnership firm and was carrying on business of general merchandise goods. The defendant-appellant was operating a canteen and hospital issued a tender for the purchase of certain items for which the quotation was given by the plaintiff-respondent which was approved. The plaintiff-respondent had also made supply for the goods in respect of which the payment was made but subsequently, the orders were not placed by t...
Rajeev Awasthi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC45
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioners are agriculture graduates and are enrolled in the Employment Exchange. They were appointed by the District Horticulture Officer, Shahjahanpur, respondent No. 2 on contract basis on a project under Sunishchit Rozgar Yojna run by the Horticulture Deptt. in different blocks of the District Shahjahanpur. Letter of Contract is as under :vuqcU/k i=tuin 'kktgkiqj esa fodkl [k.Mds vUrxZr lqfuf'pr jkstxkj ,oa vU; vkS/kksfxd dk;ks dk lapkyu gsrq AvkSj ftyk m|ku vf/kdkjh] 'kkgtgkiqjf}rh; i{k ds e/; fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ds v/khu vuqcU/k fd;k tkrk gS &&1 ;g vuqcU/k tkjh djus dhfrfFk ls izHkkoh gksxk A*2;g vuqcU/k ;kstuk vof/k vFkok vf/kdre 3 o'kks ds fy, ekU; gksxk A3 vuqcU/k i= esa n'kkZ;s x;sizFke i{k dks fodkl [k.M esa lqfuf'pr jkstxkj ;kstuk ,oa vU; vkS|ksfxd ;kstukvksads leLr i;Zos{kdh; dk;Z f}rh; i{k ds funsZ'kkuqlkj lEikfnr djus gksaxs A4 vuqcU/k esa n'kkZ;s x;sizFke i{k dks dk;Z ekg lekIr gksus ds ,...
Dhanesra and 2 ors. Vs. Smt. Sabira
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1686
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is the second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1982 passed by the then IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the then VIth Additional Munsif, Faizabad in Regular Suit No. 132 of 1980.2. The following questions of law have been formulated in this second appeal :(1) Whether the burden of proof loses its importance when both the parties enter into evidence knowing their cases full well?(2) Whether the learned lower appellate court wrongly relied on Section 11 of the Evidence Act which has got no application in the present case while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court?(3) Whether the learned lower appellate court wrongfully rejected the evidence of P.W. Nand Kishore on the pretext that he belongs to another hamlet and did not read the evidence of Kedar Nath, Amin and his map and report?3. I have heard arguments and have gone through the record.4. It has bee...
Dinesh Prasad Vs. Inspector General Registration and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC43
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The above writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.1999, dispensing with the services of the petitioner. According to the respondents petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc and temporary basis on a fixed salary. At the time of admission, the following interim order was granted on 22.4.1999 in favour of the petitioner :'Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two months time to file counter-affidavit. Three weeks thereafter the petitioner shall file rejoinder-affidavit.List in third week of August, 1999.Until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order 18.3.1999 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued to his services and be paid his salary till regular selection is made on the post in question.(S/d.) V.M. Sahai, J.2.4.1999.'3. The Brief facts of the case are that petition...
Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC99
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 29.8.95, whereby he was removed from his services while working on the post of Assistant Revenue Accountant/ Assistant Wasil Baqil Navis.3. The following reliefs in the form of prayers have been sought:'(A) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.8.1995 (Annexure-11) passed by respondent No. 2;(B) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioner to continue on his post of Assistant Revenue Accountant/Sahayak Rajaswa Lekhakar and to pay him salary month to month as and when the same falls due to him;(C) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to make the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period he remained under s...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »