Allahabad Court February 2005 Judgments
Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. the Labour Court, Designated Presiding Of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR479]; (2005)2UPLBEC1754
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned award dated 30th November, 2000, contained in Annexure XII to the writ petition, passed by the designated Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. for district Saharanpur.2. The Labour court, by the impugned award, decided the reference in favour of the workman and has held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 31.3.1998 is illegal and unjustified. It has further been held that the punishment of termination from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. While granting relief of reinstatement with full back wages to the workman, the Labour Court also directed that instead of termination of service, stoppage of one increment and withholding the wages for period of suspension would be the appropriate punishment on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.3. The dispute relates to the termination of services w.e.f. 31.3.1998 of respondent No. 4-S.P. S...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Khalida Begum W/O Shri Hasan Ali Vs. State of U.P. (Through Secre ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2653
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.2. The petitioner, Smt. Khalida Begum has admittedly worked as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Sarkada Khas, Block Mundha Pandey, Tehsil and District Moradabad between 1995 to 2000. In respect of the said period of working of the petitioner as Pradhan, proceedings under Rule 256 of the Surcharge Rules framed under Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 were initiated. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice. After reply to the show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Moradabad passed an order dated 30th September, 2003 imposing surcharge of Rs. 1, 51, 057/- upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad under Rule 258 of the Surcharge Rules, which was numbered as 4 of 2003-04. The appeal preferred by the p...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Through Housing Commissioner, Vs. Addit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2582; 2005(2)ESC1053; (2005)2UPLBEC1322
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 27.7.2001, 16/23.10.2000 and 18.9.1998 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The impugned orders have been filed as Annexures 7, 6 and 4 respectively to the writ petition. It is prayed that the aforesaid orders be quashed and a direction be issued to the Additional Civil Judge (respondent No. 2) to decide Suit No. 590 of 1998 on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow through the Housing Commissioner, Lucknow and Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. Brief Facts of the case3. Petitioner No. 1 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow is a Corporation of the State Government having its office at Lucknow. It is governed by the statutory provisions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadaphal Singh Alias Angnu Singh, Son of Late Sri Bindeshwari Singh Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2967
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30 11.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1995 confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.2. 1994 passed by trial court in Original Suit No. 577 of 1990.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by Hirday Narain Singh (defendant No. 1 in favour of Shyam Narain Singh defendant No. 2 on the ground that there was a private partition between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in which out of land of plot No. 274 area 19 biswa and in plot No. 272 out of 2 Bigha 10 Biswa 11 Door, 15 Biswa 15 Dhoor was given to defendant No. 1 and plaintiff was given remaining area of plot no. 272 1 Bigha 14 Biswa and 16 Dhoor and both are in actual) possession in respect of their area, but defendant No. 1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 28.6.1988 showing one half share of total area of Plot No. 272 in respect of Shyam Narain Singh defendant No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jogi Son of Ram Murat Mishra and Rajdeo Son of Jai Ram Kewat Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3216
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1981 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in S.T. No. 100 of 1981, State of U.P. v. Jogi and Anr., whereby both the appellants Jogi and Rajdeo have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Earlier both the appellants were represented by Sri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate, who filed the appeal. However, he did not turn up to advance arguments, when the appeal came up for hearing. Therefore, arguments of Sri G.S. Bisaria, learned AGA for the State were heard and judgment was delivered by this Bench on 24.3.2003. The appeal was dismissed. 3. The appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2003, Jogi and Anr. v. State of U.P., before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that it was a serious matter that the advocate for the appellants did not appear before the High Court even after the matter was adjourn...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC772; 2005(3)AWC2148
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhat Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage,3. By means of this petition, the tenant-petitioners have challenged the order-dated 5.8.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the tenants' application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.4. It appears that an application under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the landlord, respondent No. 3 for enhancement of the rent. The building in question was admittedly let out to-the State of U.P. in which the office of Trade Tax Officer, Kasganj, Etah was functioning. The application of the landlord was...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman @ Mane Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC775; 2005(3)AWC2150
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who alleges to be a person in occupation of the accommodation in question, filed an application alongwith revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act with the prayer that delay in filing the revision may be condoned and the revision. May be heard and decided on merits. The revisional Court by its order dated 4th October 2004 rejected the aforesaid application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner alleges himself to be tenant and therefore, prays for stay of the execution of the order of eviction which is subject matter of revision, The revisional Court found that the revision itself is not maintainable, thus application for condonation of delay was also dismissed alongwith the memo of revision. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner is being evicted in execution of the order to which he is not a party and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Milan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC991
U.K. Dhaon, J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, U.P., assisted by Sri Shabiul Hasnain, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court, against the order dated 3.12.2003, by which the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.8.2003, was rejected by the Board of Revenue and the order, dated 4.9.2004, rejecting the review petition of the petitioner.3. The petitioner has alleged that he was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar by the order, dated 7.5.1990, on ad hoc basis against the substantive vacancy and thereafter the State Government by the order, dated 10.3.1999, took the decision on the representation preferred by the petitioner to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsildar, as an exceptional case, and it was provided that this shall not be treated as a precedent. The petitioner has furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Kant Ojha Son of Dr. Vijay Shanker Ojha and ors. Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1739
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. By this writ petition all the petitioners who have been adjusted in and are taking education in the State Medical Colleges in U.P., have prayed for a direction to quash the orders dated 8.1.2003 and 16.1.2003 passed by the State Government by which they have been required to pay the fees as per their selection on paid seats, at the rate of Rs. 1,26,500/- per year as against Rs. 14950/- paid by the students, who are admitted through competition.2. All the petitioners were admitted to the Medical College, Azamgarh, established by All India Children Care and Educational Development Society. The College was de-recognition by the Central Government. The petitioners filed writ petitions and lost before this Court. The matter thereafter went up to Supreme Court. In Special Leave to Appeal (CC) 2478-99 of 1999 filed by Union of India v. All India Children Care Development Society and Anr., an interim order was passed directing the Society to admit only upto 50 students. A w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gurdass Ram and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)543; [2005]278ITR255(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court :'Whether remuneration paid as business adviser to a partner of the firm is covered under the provisions of Section 40(b) or not ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under :3. The. reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The respondent-assessee is a registered partnership firm. It had entered into an agreement some time in January 1973, with M/s. Co-operative Co. Limited, Nawab-ganj, Saharanpur, wherein the respondent undertook to carry on business earlier carried on by the same company on certain terms and conditions.The business consists of manufacturing and sale of different brands of liquors. Some of the terms of the agreement are reproduced below :'(i) The properties owned by the said company will continue to be the property of the co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »