Allahabad Court February 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.
Smt. Salochna Wife of Sri Sonu Alias Monu and Vs. Mohammad Muslim Son ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1846; [2006(109)FLR734]
1. This appeal is from an order dated 16.1.2006 whereby all further proceedings in a Workman's Compensation's. case have been stayed. As a result, the appellant, the widow, cannot proceed with the claim for compensation on account of the death of her husband. The interim order is operative till the next date of listing before the Hon'ble Single Judge. We are told that the said date is 28.2.2006. However, for the reasons given below, we feel that some of our views have to be mentioned, especially because interim orders bound in time in the above way, are sometimes extended up to the date of hearing itself. The impugned interim order contains no reasons for its passing. Whole scale staying of a Workman's Compensation proceedings' should not, with respect, ordinarily be ordered in a writ without giving adequate and compelling reasons. According to the respondent's the order was passed interalia because of the reported decision in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Ors. ...
Shri B.N. Khanna and Shri P.N. Khanna, S/O Shri Iqbal NaraIn Khanna Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3277
S.U. Khan, J.1. Property in dispute is a flat situate in Khanna Building Subhash Nagar, Bareilly containing a big Hall and two rooms of 14' 11', dimensions each, along with Varandah, Tin shed and other amenities like latrine, bath room, kitchen etc. It was allotted to respondent No. 3, Diwakar Upadhyay on 18.1.1973 after rejection of release application of the landlords on 10.1.1973. If the version of respondent No. 3 that he paid 28 years rent on 16.11.2000 is not believed, then he is in possession for 33 years without payment of any rent. This petition was filed by P.N. Khanna and B.N. Khanna who were real brothers. B.N. Khanna died in 2003 and was substituted by his legal representatives.2. The flat in dispute fell vacant due to its vacation by earlier tenant B.R. Bhatia. Release application was filed under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by P.N. Khanna, petitioner No. 1. Even though in writ petition and in some other affidavits it was stated that release application was filed...
Rishiram, Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC2032
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The petitioners who are four in numbers instituted a suit being suit No. 240 of 1994-95-96-97 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the contesting respondents 6 to 11 in respect of plot Nos. 89, 90, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 59 total eight, total area 3 bigha, four biswa, fourteen dhur situated at village Akabarpur, Mugarson, Pargana Mah, Tehsil Handia, district Allahabad, on the allegations that the said plots belonged to their father late Nankoo, whose name was recorded in the revenue records as Bhumidhar in the basic year. During consolidation operation in the village, the name of Late Nanakoo son of Ayodhya the father of the petitioners was recorded in Akarpatra. Since there was an mistake in the revenue records the petitioners did not file any objection during consolidation operation. It appears that after the close of the consolidation operation the names of the contesting respondents who are defendant No. 2 to 8 i...
Salim S/O Shamim, Vs. State of U.P. Through Chief Secretary (Home) Dep ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1801
R.C. Deepak, J.1. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.2. The facts of the case in brief are that a case as case crime No. 368A of 2003 under Sections 323, 307, 452, 506 IPC was registered. The investigation was carried, but the final report was submitted. The informant filed protest petition. The learned magistrate recorded the statement of the informant and some of the witnesses and treated the protest petition as complaint. The principal submission raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when a final report is submitted, the following courses are open to the magistrate : (i) if satisfied, accept the final report and drop the proceeding ; (ii) to disagree with the report, summon the accused ; and (iii) to direct for further investigation. But the learned magistrate recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and certain others and treated the protest as complain...
Smt. Achla Gupta Wife of Shri Atal Gupta, Assistant Teacher, Smt. Jay ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2317
Vikram Nath, J.1. This Intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23,3.2004 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24974 of 2002 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Regional Director of Education, Agra dated 11.6.2002 granting approval to the promotion of the appellant on the post of Lecturer (History) and at the same time rejecting the claim of the respondent No. 1 for the same post.2. There is an institution by the name of Jay Harris Girls Inter College, Agra which is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and is governed by the provision of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Rules and Regulations framed therein, as also the provision of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and also the Rules framed thereunder. The appellant was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher in the institution on 18.11.1976 and since then she is continuing in the institution. The appellant is a trained gradu...
U.P. State Electricity Board Through the Executive Engineer, Electrici ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR97]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranjit Saxena and learned Counsel for the respondent workman Sri Shyam Narain at length.2. The present writ petition has been filed against an award of the Labour court dated 8.7.1991 published on 30.9.1991 in adjudication case no. 10 of 1991, by which the respondent workman has been reinstated with back wages. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and an interim order was passed on 28.1.1992, which is quoted hereinbelow:Issue notice.Meanwhile the payment of back wages till the date of award are hereby stayed.3. Interim order passed on 28.1.1992 was discharged by way of order dated 9.9.2002. Thereafter a recovery was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner obtained a stay of the recovery of this Court on 28.4.2005.4. During the interregnum i.e. between the period 22.2.2003 to 4.8.2004 the respondent workman worked again. This is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 4/6.4.2005 to which no re...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Balvir Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(All)412
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 7th of August, 1997 ; assed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 612 of 1996, the Commissioner of Trade Tax has filed the present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The dealer opposite party is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of M.S. Ingots. Its account books for the assessment year in question 1990-91 were accepted by the Assessing Authority by the order dated 30th of March, 1995. The dealer opposite party had disclosed the total purchases and sales at Rs. 2,18,39,888-31 and Rs. 2,97,34,752-89 respectively. The account books of the dealer were examined by the Assessing Officer namely the Assistant Commissioner (assessment), Orai. 3. On the basis of survey dated January, 27, 1995 at the business premises of one M/s. Narendra Rerolling Mills Private Limited, Secundra (hereinafter called third party), reassessment proceedings under S...
Sidheswar Mishra Son of Raghunath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Through Dir ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR695]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Case has been taken up in the revised list but Sri Ranjit Saxena, counsel for the respondent- Power Corporation is not present. Sri Brij Lal Verma, who is not in the panel of the Power Corporation, states that he is holding brief of Sri Ranjit Saxena in this case. He states that the brief has been handed over to him by Sri Ranjit Saxena for arguing the present recall application.2. At the outset, Court requested Sri Brij Lal Verma to address the Court whether he, as a private counsel, can hold the brief of Special counsel/Government counsel on the panel of the Corporation or not. Sri Brij Lal Verma submitted that he can argue the matter since he has been directed to do so by Sri Ranjit Saxena.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Sri Ranjit Saxena nor Sri Brij Lal Verma can file the recall application and argue the case for the following reasons :1. The writ petition was decided by judgment and order dated 31.1.2006 after hearing counsel for both the pa...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Regional Manager Vs. Moh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC303
ORDERS.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been brought against the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby awarding compensation of Rs. 60,000 towards the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident of the Roadways Bus No. UP 65-5052 with a truck, it is said that the learned Tribunal had not properly appreciated the evidence and materials on record. There was insufficient evidence to show that the claimant was virtually travelling in that bus. It is for the claimant to prove that whatever injuries he sustained they were virtually on account of the accident of the bus in which he was travelling. It is said that non-production of ticket would show the claimant to be not the bona fide passenger. Whatever evidence was taken into consideration by the Tribunal for settling the compensation amount was insuffi...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Sug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2535
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 had filed a caveat and was served with a copy of the writ petition a week ago on 7-2-2006. Shri Navin Sinha, senior advocate assisted by Shri Ajeet. Ray appearing for the respondent No. 4 has been heard at length. We have also heard Shri Ravindra Singh for respondent No. 3 and the Standing Counsel for the remaining two'respondents. After the conclusion of hearing Sri Sinha was asked whether the respondent No. 4 wants to file a-counter affidavit or wants final disposal of the writ petition. Sri Sinha stated that the respondent No. 4 does not propose to file any counter affidavit because the material facts are not in dispute.2. In the original order of reservation of areas by the Cane Commissioner dated 21-10-2005, the respondent No. 4 was given 30 purchase centers; and the purchase center known as Guleria was not given to respondent No. 4, but was 'given to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »