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.
Ajai Kumar Son of Late Shri Om Prakash Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1749
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Ms. Pratima Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K.Misra, holding brief for Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner has assailed the two orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moradabad, one dated 1.10.2002 dismissing his claim petition in default and the subsequent order dated 3.3.2003 rejecting the application for recall of the order dated 1.10.2002.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has excluded from consideration the submissions made in the application for recall of the order dated 1.10.2002 and the compelling circumstances under which the petitioner could not pursue his case before the Tribunal. As per petitioner, there was no element of wilful or deliberate avoidance in pursuing the case before the Tribunal. Several circumstances, which were enumerated in the application, were highlighted before the Tr...
Ram Autar and ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2836
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This defendant's second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 63 of 1973 for possession of the house in question. The suit was dismissed on 20.3.1975. The District Judge, Rampur allowed the Civil Appeal No. 240 of 1975 on 23.3.1976.2. According to plaint allegations the house in dispute was owned by one Bassi Lal, who died three years prior to the filing of the suit, leaving his widow Mst. Chameli Devi. She was in possession of the house. On 20.7.1973 she transferred it by a registered sale deed and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. On 22.7.1973 the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, broke open the lock and took possession of the house in plaintiffs absence. The plaintiff lodged a F.I.R. and then filed the suit two days thereafter for possession and for compensation.3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 denied that Bassi Lal was the owner of the house. They claimed that the house actually belonged to one Shri Ashrafi Lal, father of defendant No. 1, who died 15 years ago leaving two son...
P.i. Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST19(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated April 13, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2004-05.2. Brief facts of the case are that against the order of the first appellate authority dated January 29, 2005, which was served on the counsel on February 8, 2005, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal on February 21, 2006 beyond time by 287 days. Appeal was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it was contended that by mistake of counsel an appeal could not be filed and when the applicant contacted his counsel for the preparation of the assessment case for the assessment year 2004-05, it was found that the appeal against the appellate order dated January 29, 2005 could not be filed. The earlier ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Central Workshop Through Its De ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR520]
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 5.8.1988 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 71 of 1986. Through the said award respondent No. 1, a worker in petitioner-Corporation has been declared entitled to the promotion to the post of skilled labourer and to receive wages of skilled labourer. Respondent No. 2 was working as unskilled labourer. In between unskilled labourer and skilled labourer there is another category i.e. semi skilled labourer. The Industrial Tribunal through the impugned award directed a sort of double promotion to the petitioner.3. The only ground given by the Industrial Tribunal is that petitioner was doing the job which was also being performed by skilled labourers. However, the petitioner Corporation asserted and the same was not disbelieved by the Industrial Tribunal that in their workshop there was no sharp division of work and any typ...
Smt. Annapurna Gupta Vs. Dwarika Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3124
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This is landlady's petition challenging the validity and correctness of Judgment dated 12.9.2005, passed by Special Judge (S.C/S.T. Act) in Rent Control Appeal No. 115 of 2004 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2004, pissed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 21 of 1994.2. Smt. Annapurna Gupta-petitioner (landlady) filed release application, registered as P.A. Case No. 21 of 1994 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Sri Dwarika Nath- respondent on the ground of bona fide need of the disputed accommodation comprising of three-doors shop for her three adult sons- S./Sri Sandeep Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Sudeep Kumar.3. The release application was contested by the tenant-respondent denying the plaint allegations on the ground that the petitioner-landlady owns a building bearing No. 365...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Oswal Agra Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST629(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 16, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1995-96.2. The assessing authority had levied the tax on the amount received from M/s. Sudarshan Freight Carrier, Shahjahanpur under Section 3F of the Act on the ground that the opposite party had transferred the right to use 113 trucks to M/s. Sudarshan Freight Carrier, Shahjahanpur. The opposite party filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Moradabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Moradabad vide order dated December 8, 1998 allowed the appeal and deleted the tax levied under Section 3F of the Act. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that even though, the Tribunal has o...
Mahavir Prasad Varun Vs. Kalaudi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2834
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 17.8.2006 whereby the judgment of the trial court decreeing the appellant plaintiffs suit has been set aside and the appeal had been allowed.3. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction praying to declare the sale deed dated 4.1.2001 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 as null and void and to restrain the defendant No. 1 from causing any interference in plaintiffs possession over the disputed land. During the pendency of the suit another relief of mandatory injunction praying for demolition of construction raised in the land by the defendant No. 1 has been added. The plaintiff appellant claims himself the owner of the property ABCD shown in the plaint over which he used to have his old house, which had become dilapidated. Initially it was alleged to be an open land after the plaintiffs house had fallen ...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Qayum Khan thekedar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: (2009)23VST508(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These four revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24th February, 2006. Trade Tax Revision Nos. 810, 811 and 682 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2003-04 and Trade Tax Revision No. 812 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2002-03. Since the common question of law are involved in all the four revisions, same are being disposed of by the common order.2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as 'Dealers') were civil contractors. They have been awarded several contracts of civil nature by the various Government departments in the years under consideration. The nature of the contracts are admittedly the works contract of civil nature. Dealers were liable to tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contracts under Section 3-F of the Act. All the dealers applied under the compounding scheme, introduced ...
Sardar Jasvir Singh Son of Sardar Hardev Singh and Sardar Ranjit Singh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC30; 2007CriLJ2538
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The Bareilly Consumer Court decreed the claim of the complainant/ Respondent No. 2 against. The Punjab Auto Finance, Bareilly' represented by the petitioners for Rs. 15,000/-. The claim in the Consumer Forum Court was against the Punjab Auto Finance and its partners Jasvir Singh and his father Sri Hardev Singh. Sri Hardev Singh is now dead and now in his place, complainant-respondent No. 2 has brought in his other son petitioner No. 2 Sardar Ranjit Singh. Both petitioners are real brothers.2. After passing of the decree by the consumer Court on 9.8.2004 , the decree holder made an application before the Consumer Forum that the decree was realized out side the Court. The cheque dated 9/10.8.2004 for Rs. 15000/- issued by the petitioner Jasvir Singh ( for Self or Bearer) was presented by the respondent No. 2 to Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bareilly but was returned with the remark insufficient funds in the account'. Thereafter, the complainant- respondent No. 2 gav...
Kumari Shabnoor (Minor) D/O Mohammad Tahseen Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1719
Vinod Prasad, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Mohammad Tahseem, father and Guardian of Km. Shabnoor (Minor) praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas corpus directing respondent No. 2 and 3 to produce the victim Km. Shabnoor (Minor) before this Court on a particular date and release her from the illegal custody of respondents No. 4 to 8. It has further been prayed that a writ order or direction may be issued to the respondents to hand over the custody of petitioner Km. Shabnoor (Minor) forthwith to her natural guardian Mohammad Tahseem, the petitioner who is her father.2. The brief facts as are averred in this petition are that Km. Shabnoor is the daughter of Mohammad Tahseem and is a minor. Km. Shabnoor (minor) was a regular student of Primary Pathshala, Agwanpur, Block Parikshitgarh, District Meerut and had studied there upto class IIIrd. After her admission in class 4th she left going to school, Her date of birth as is mentioned in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »