Allahabad Court August 2004 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satya Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC879; 2005ACJ1752; 2005(2)AWC1189
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. This appeal is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 25.10.1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T. No. 16 of 1991.2. One Om Veer Singh, a labourer on daily wages at Rs. 25 was engaged by a truck driver having registration No. RNT 559 for loading and unloading purposes and was travelling in the said truck on 3rd of July, 1988. On that day while going from Jagner to Sardi the said truck collided with another truck No. DEG 3398. On account of collision of two trucks aforesaid, Shri Om Veer Singh was seriously injured and ultimately died.3. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are sons of deceased and wife filed claim petition claiming compensation being M.A.C. No. 16 of 1991. In the claim petition the owners of two trucks and their respective Insurance Companies were impleaded as opposite parties.4. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 28.10.1991, awarded a sum o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)72; [2005]275ITR247(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as an Act), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in recalling a part of its order dated December 1, 1981, confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The Tribunal vide order dated December 1, 1981, has decided the appeal filed by the assessee. Thereafter, an application was filed by the assessee contending that certain mistake apparent from the record had crept in the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, the entire order needs to be recalled and a fresh opportunity of hearing be allowed. The Tribunal vide order dated June 14, 1983, had partly allowed the application. It has held that grounds Nos. 2, 3 and 4 set out in t...
Chandra Bhal Misra and ors. Vs. Shankar Saran Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1893
S.K. Singh, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Bansi dated 12.11.1969, which was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate court by its judgment dated 6.5.1972.2. Plaintiffs-appellants filed Original Suit No. 66 of 1967 against the defendants claiming 2/3rd share in the suit property. A pedigree was given in the plaint about which there happens to be no dispute, which for the convenience is being reproduced :Sarjoo Prasad|________________________________________________| | |Gur Prasad Har Prasad Shyam Prasad| || |_______________ Shri Ram Ram Sewak| | | = Smt. Jagwanta Ram Kumar Sheo Sahai ________________________| = Mst. Prema | || Defdt. 3 Shankar Saran Shambhoo SaranDefendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2_____________________________| | |Chandra Chandra ChandraBhal Shekhar BhushanPlaintiff Plaintiff PlaintiffNo. 1 No. 2 No. 33. The claim of plaintiffs was that Sarju Prasad had three sons Gur Prasad, Har Prasad and Shyam Prasad....
Harnam Das Vs. Iind A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1898
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.2. The petitioner tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court dated 16th November, 1988, whereby the revisional court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that there is material alteration, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the finding regarding material alteration is perverse and based on a report, which cannot be said to have been proved according to the evidence, which is inadmissible and the said report was submitted by the Commissioner in connection with some other suit, he, therefore, su...
Committee of Management, Mahanth Vishwanath Yati Madhyamik Vidyalaya a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2249
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri H.K. Singh on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Umesh Vats on behalf of respondent No. 3. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 4 despite notice having been issued by this Court.2. Smt. Buchai Devi widow of late Chandra Dev Singh, claiming herself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management Mahanth Vishwanath Yati Madhyamik Vidyalaya Chogra, Ballia, has filed this petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17th March, 2004, whereby the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner is not even a member of the general body which constitutes the electoral college for electing the office bearers of the society and further it has been held that the elections set up by the. respondent No. 3, which are unopposed and supported by other members of the general body, are legal and valid.3. On behalf of the pet...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Narayan Thathera and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC398
Prakash Krishan, J.1. This is an appeal at the Instance of Insurance Company who had insured a truck hearing registration No. DIG 3227. The appeal arises out of MACT No. 389 of 2000 with respect to a claim petition filed under Sections 140, 165 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The facts of case lie in a narrow compass. Virendra, a boy of 5 years on 5.10.1992 at about 10 a.m. received injuries from the aforesaid truck insured with the appellant due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The boy expired while he was being taken to the Gorakhpur Sadar Hospital for treatment. His parents filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 90,000/- on the allegation that the aforesaid truck while coming from East to West hit their minor son Virendra who ultimately expired on the same day.3. In the claim petition the Insurance Company appellant as well as the owner of the truck were impleaded as parties. The truck owner filed written statement denying the allegations of the Ac...
Satish Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC666; (2004)3UPLBEC2806
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Satish Kumar, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Budaun, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, and to dismiss the Election Petition No. 23 of2001 and to the consequential reliefs.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :In the district of Budaun, there is a Kshettra Panchayat, Junawai in the Tchsil Gunnaur, wherein there are 50 Nirvachan Kshettra from which one member each is to be elected. The members thereafter elect a Pramukh. Kashipur is one of the Nirvachan Kshettra. Ram Babu Singh, respondent No. 2, has been elected as member of the Kshettra Panchayat, Kashipur. He filed his nomination paper for the post of Pramukh. The petitioner also contes...
Arshadi (Smt.) Vs. Prescribed Authority/Sub-divisional Magistrate and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3667; (2004)3UPLBEC2743
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Pleadings arc complete in Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2003, which is sufficient to decide Writ Petition No. 423 of 2004 also. With consent of the parties, the writ petitions are being finally decided.3. Writ Petition No. 423 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as first writ petition) has been filed challenging the order dated 27th December, 2003 passed by Prescribed Authority directing for recount of votes in Election Petition No. 10 field by Smt. Fahmida, Respondent No. 2 in first writ petition. Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to second writ petition) has been filed by Smt. Fahmida, the election petitioner, challenging the order dated 31.1.2004 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in Panchayat Revision No. 23 of 2004 (Smt. Arshadi v. Smt. Fahmida) allowing the revision and setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority by which the election petition filed by Smt. Fahmida was allowed.4. Brief fac...
Committee of Management, Victoria Inter College and anr. Vs. Amar Nath ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3687; [2005(105)FLR168]; (2004)3UPLBEC2758
M. Katju, A.C.J. and Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30.7.2004.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.3. The question in this case is that if both husband and wife arc in service whether they both arc entitled to get house rent allowances? We arc of the firm opinion that they are not. The reason for our opinion is that house rent allowance is given for compensation for the house rent which an employee has to pay to his landlord.4. Ordinarily a husband and wife are presumed to live together in the same house, and if they arc paying say Rs. 1,000/- to the landlord then obviously both husband as well as wife cannot get house rent allowances of Rs. 1,000/- each because they will then be getting Rs. 2,000/- as house rent allowance. Hence we arc of the opinion that if both the husband and wife are in service then both arc not entitled to house rent allowance ...
Lalta Prasad and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3688
ORDERKrishna Murari, J.1. I have heard I. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to plot No. 1679M area 3-10-0 and plot No. 1677M area 10-0-0 situate in village Lacchmanpatti, Tehsil Gyanpur district Varanasi. The plots belong to Gaon Sabha which executed lease deed of different area of the said plots in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963. The Tehsildar made a report that lease executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by the Land Management Committee being against the provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder was invalid and liable to be cancelled. On the said report proceedings for cancellation were initiated against the petitioner No. 1 and he was put to notice. He contested the proceedings and filed objections. The Assistant Collector, First Class vide order dated 13.10.1969, held that lease was executed in accordance with the provision o...