Allahabad Court October 2005 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.
Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association Vs. B.C. JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1378
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff who feels aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court refused to grant ex parte temporary injunction without hearing the other side. It therefore, issued notices to the defendants and directed the file to be put up for disposal of the application No. 6C on 4.10.2005, approached this Court. The provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 is reproduced below:115. Revision.-The High Court, in case arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act...
Kunwar Singh Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D. and S.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1641
ORDERV.M. Sahai and B.A. Zaidi, JJ.1. We have heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. B. Saran learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Parmatma Rai, advocate.2. In Motor Accident Claim No. 779 of 2000, Kunwar Singh v. Mahavir Singh and Anr. the Tribunal made an award on 30.5.2005 partly allowing the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,04,500 alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment and New India Assurance Company was held liable to pay the amount, and Sri Kunwar Singh and Smt. Khema Devi were entitled to receive half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed that New India Assurance Company has deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal on 17.6.2005 and the award of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the insurance company. The petitioner applied before the Tribunal that amount awarded be released. On 27.7.2005 the Motor Accident Claims Tribun...
Panney Alias Pratap NaraIn Shukla and Dhanney Alias Prabhu NaraIn Shuk ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ693
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.4 Deoria in S.T.No. 152 of 2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Briefly stated, the facts mentioned in the first information report lodged by Ram Awadh Yadav are that about one month prior to the incident his son Sheodhari got registered a sale deed of the land from one Rudra Narain Shukla, who was pattidar of Harihar Shukla. The accused were annoyed due to the execution of the sale deed and they were inimical with them. On 7.11.2003 at about 7. p.m. Sheodhari had-gone to the house of Shyam Kunwar of the village. On the exhortation of Harihar Shukla, Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla hurled a bomb, which hit Sheodhari on his abdomen and he fell on the ground. Chhanney @ Prabhu Naain ...
Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi S/O Sri Uma Shankar Chaube Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All40
Vineet Saran, J.1. This writ petition was filed with the prayer for quashing the subsequent transfer order passed in the case of the petitioner. After issuing notices to the respondents, this Court passed an interim order dated 8.9.2005, which reads as under:'Issue notice to the respondents fixing a date immediately after six weeks. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 are both the Account Clerks working in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, which is a Government of India undertaking. On their own request the respondent No. 5 was transferred from Ghazipur to Lucknow whereas the petitioner was transferred from Man to Ghazipur by order dated 13,7.2005 passed by the Zonal Director, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Lucknow, respondent No. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the petitioner was relieved from Mau on 15.7.2005 and he went to Ghazipur to join on 16.7.2005. However, although the respondent No. 5 had been relieved from Ghazipur but the petitioner was not permitted to join ther...
Aar Bee Enterprises (Proprietor Aar Bee Containers Pvt. Ltd.) a Compan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas25(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This creditors winding up petition was filed, after giving notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, for non payment of Rs. 2,64,096.61 towards the supplies of 15 Kg. Ghee tin containers. In the notice dated 28.3.2000, the petitioner company also demanded 9% interest.3. During the pendency of the winding up petition, the respondent company has paid the entire amount due towards the supply of the tin containers. The payments were made on 12.4.2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,now only the interest which has been compounded and calculated at Rs. 2,08,990/in the application No. 77941 of 2002 filed on 25.4.2002, is due from the respondent company. In para 16 of the Counter Affidavit, the respondent company has denied the liability and the rate of interest.4. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent company had agreed to ...
Murari Lal Pandey Son of Sri Banwari Lal Pandey Vs. the District Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1057]
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Shri Yogesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for Smt. Vishnu Priya in writ petition No. 5031103 and 38718/04, Shri K.S. Rathore for Shri Kalyan Saini in writ petition No. 34709/03, Shri P.S. Yadav for Murari Lal Pandey in writ petition No. 34640/03 and Shri Madhusudan Dixit for Shri Amit Trivedi in writ petition No. 45879/2004.2. In writ petition No. 5031 of 2003, Smt. Vishnu Priya has challenged the order by which her appointment dated 15.7.2003 was converted into adhoc appointment; and in her second writ petition No. 38718 of 2004 she has challenged the order dated 11.8.2004 by which her services were ceased as the junior most employee on the ground that one Shri Bhawanideen, a Daftari, who was earlier dismissed was reinstated, by orders of the High Court.3. Shri Kalyan Saini has prayed for his appointment in terms of the order passed by this Court on 28.8.2002, in writ petition No. 19643/02 Jaikaran Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.; in which his appointment out of ...
Ram Asrey Singh Son of Late Shri Ram Dev Singh and ors., Through Its N ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1607
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 12.12.2000 and 25.5.2000 passed by the Courts below, Annexures- 2 and 4 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute.2. The case of the petitioners is that Original Suit No. 1366 of 1990 was filed I by respondent No. 2 on 31.5.1990 against the deceased father of the petitioners No. 1 to 3 in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 15.12.1989 with an allegation that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were the real brothers and they were jointly Bhumidhars in possession of the land detailed in Schedule 'A' given at the foot of the plaint situate in village Phulwaria, Tehsil- Sadar, district- Gorakhpur. In the plaint it was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 3) had half share each in the land in dispute. In the year 1985 when he was stu...
Aar Bee Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Gyan Security Press Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2007]74SCL219(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, earned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents.2. This creditors winding-up petition was filed, after giving notice under Section 434(l)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, for non-payment of Rs. 2,64,096.61 towards the supplies of 15kg. ghee tin containers. In the notice dated 28-3-2000 the petitioner-company also demanded 9 per cent interest.3. During the pendency of the winding-up petition, the respondent-company has paid the entire amount due towards the supply of the tin containers. The payments were made on 12-4-2002. According to earned Counsel for the petitioner, now only the interest which has been compounded and calculated at Rs. 2,08,990 in the Application No. 77941 of 2002 filed on 25-4-2002, is due from the respondent-company. In para 16 of the counter affidavit, the respondent-company has denied the liability and the rate of interest.4. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent-company had agreed...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hari Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC275
R.P. Misra, J.1. Filing of the formal order is dispensed with.2. Heard Mr. M.S. Haq, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sharad Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for the respondents.3. It has been held by the Tribunal that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month on the basis of record available to him. An attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is illegal. However, according to us no illegality has been pointed out to have been committed by the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased.4. In these circumstances, this appeal has no force and is summarily dismissed. It is however, provided that the statutory deposits made before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal within three weeks from today....
The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Centr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC805
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the rules of the court.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. This petition is directed against an order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 21.7.1997 accepting the reference of the workman and directing his reinstatement together with 374th back wages.4. The respondent workman was a Cashier in the pallia. Branch of the petitioner Bank when allegations of financial misappropriation were leveled against him and a charge sheet dated 20.6.1977 was issued. After holding an enquiry the services of the respondent workman were 1 dispensed with which gave rise to a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was registered as industrial dispute No. 21 of 1996 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. After exchange of pleadings the Tribunal framed a preliminary issue with regard to fairness of the enquir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »