Allahabad Court November 2006 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.
Rajeev Kumar Jauhari Son of Surendra Kumar Jauhari, Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR544(All); 2007(2)AWC1726
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Whether U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Absorption Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations. 2006) framed by the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires is the question raised in the writ petition.2. The facts are not in dispute, but, to appreciate the controversy, may be narrated in brief, as under:In the State of Uttar Pradesh, generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy upto 1989 was solely in the hands of the U.P. State Electricity Board (in short 'UPSEB'), a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (in short '1948 Act'). With the expansion of the generation units, a government company, namely, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (in short 'UPRVUNL') was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1980. It is wholly owned by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, in 1985, another company, U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (in sh...
Smt. Saresho Vs. Siriya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1341
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. This revision challenges the order dated 30.10.2006 whereby the petitioner's application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. in the pleadings of the plaint has been rejected by the lower appellate court.By the proposed amendments the petitioner plaintiff has sought to incorporate five new paragraphs in the plaint to add certain facts whereby she wants to state that the disputed gali was the exclusive property of her mother and that one pedigree is also proposed to be added. Some fact regarding a compromise reached between the plaintiff and the third party is also sought to be added and thus to state that opposite party defendant did not have any access to the disputed gali. These facts were found by the court below to be wholly impermissible for addition in the pleadings of the plaint as certain admissions of the plaintiff in that regard had already appeared in her evidence recorded before the trial court, whi...
Smt. Sangita Yadav W/O Sri Rajesh Kumar Vs. General Manager, Indian Oi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1814
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by which he has cancelled the merit panel prepared by the Selection Committee on 21.10.2003 for retail outlet at Etawah City, Category Open (W), Marketing Plan 1996-98.2. The respondent authorities invited applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at various places including the city of Etawah. Large number of persons applied for the same and after scrutinizing the applications, interview was held on 20th and 21st October, 2003. A panel of three candidates was prepared wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. However, as no Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner, she filed a writ petition before this Court for issuing a direction to the respondents to execute the contract in her favour. The said writ petition has been dismisse...
Munendra Pal Singh Chauhan Son of Late Mahendra Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR691]
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy the present writ petition has been filed principally on the allegation that the petitioner's father Mahendra Pal Singh Chauhan was a senior operator in 'A' Power Station, Harduaganj, U.P. State Electricity Board and was a permanent employee who left the house for attending duty on 28th of August, 1990 and did not return thereafter till date. The petitioner claimed that a civil death of his father should be presumed and as his father died during the service, the petitioner is entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The said claim having been rejected by the respondents by the impugned order dated 17th of November, 1998, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated November 17, 1998 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition ) and a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of routine grade clerk under the Dying in Harness Rules forthwi...
Bhole Alias Banarasi Vs. Rajesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1804
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.C. Verma holding brief of Sri R.K. Yadav appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 6.11.2006 whereby the appellant plaintiffs first appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.3. The appellant plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a Will stating it to be a forged document and obtained by practice of fraud. The executant of the Will Gupal Singh has been claimed to be the real brother of the appellant whereas the defendant No. 1, who is beneficiary in the Will is a resident of some other village and belongs to a separate caste. On this basis, it is alleged that there was absolutely no occasion for Gupal Singh to execute the disputed Will in favour of the defendant-respondent No. 1. It is further alleged that one advocate namely R.K. Kulshrestha doing pairvi on behalf of Gu...
Umesh NaraIn Sharma Son of Late R.K. Sharma Vs. the New India Assuranc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC487
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, seeks the following reliefs:(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.6.2005 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 'l' to the writ petition);(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the claim of Rs. 3.31 lacs to the petitioner in respect of the expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner;(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case;(iv) award costs of this petition to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow:The petitioner is a Senior Advocate of this Court. He had taken a mediclaim insurance policy from the ...
Sukhbir Singh Son of Sri Suraj Pal Singh Vs. the State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1214]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Anshu Chaudhary for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This petition was initially filed challenging an order dated 25.2.2005/1.3.2005 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. By an amendment a further relief for quashing of a Government order dated 7.2.2005 has also been sought which is the basis of the first impugned order.3. In pursuance of an open advertisement published in the daily newspaper 'Aaj' on 14.9.2004 inviting applications for recruitment on two posts of driver, the petitioner along with others applied for it and after interview and driving test on 2.10.2004 he was selected in the scale of 3050-4050 and an appointment letter dated 11.11.2004 was issued in his favour. In pursuance of the said appointment he joined the Zila Panchayat on 16.11.2004 and started working. However, by the impugned order dated 25.2.2005/1.3.2005 his appointment was cancelled on t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh S/O Sri Arjun Si ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(All)390; [2007]289ITR203(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty proceedings Under Section 273(b) cannot be initiated in reassessment proceedings?2. The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1972-73 in respect of the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 273(1)(b) of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follow:The respondent assessee was intercepted on 1.6.1971 by the Police with 2240 Kgs. smuggled ganja valued at Rs. 6,72,000/-. As no return was filed by him, the Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings underSection 147(a)...
Chhail Bihari Gautam S/O Hem Prakash Gautam Vs. Secretary Board of Hig ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC918
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as perused the materials available on record.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the finding of Unfair Means Committee to the effect that answers of petitioner's Answersheet were copied and are similar to the Answers of a student having Role No. 815657 is perverse and is vitiated in law and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed., if is clear from Answersheets produced before the Court that the mistakes occurred in the answers of the student of Role No. 815657 were not found in the answers of the petitioner and thus it could not be said that the petitioner indulged in copying to the answersheet of the student of Role No. 815657.3. Learned Standing Counsel produced relevant answersheets before this Court.4. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the materials on record.5. The allegation against the petitioner (Role Number 81...
Lakhan Singh Son of Komal Singh Vs. the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR84]
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 8.10.1992 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 15.5.1993 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) by which his appeal has been rejected. He has further prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits thereof.2. The petitioner was working as a conductor with the to U.P.S.R.T.C., in a substantive capacity. A Disciplinary Enquiry was instituted against him as the petitioner on 23.1.1990 while conducting Bus No. UGC 887 from Rath to Hamirpur on checking by the Traffic Superintendent was found carrying 18 passengers without tickets. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) absolving him from all the charges. The Appointing Authority disagreeing with the Enquiry Report for reasons recorded in the show cause notice dated 6.6.1992 called upon the petitioner to furnish his explan...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »