Allahabad Court July 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.
M.M. Carpet Industries and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC44
2. The learned Counsel for the applicants in support of his application referred notice dated 16th August, 2000 under Section 13(2) and the notice dated 1st December, 2003 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002. It is stated that two different loan amounts are mentioned in these notices. The amount under C.C.account No. 91 in the notice dated 16th August, 2000 is shown as nil whereas under notice dated 1st December, 2003 it is shown as Rs. 4,70,966.88. He further contended that the loan account number and the date of classification and other details of non-performing asset are not given in the notice under Section 13(2). He further contended that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were issued under the Ordinance which has lost its validity after the Act coming into force.In this connection he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in some other case quashing the notices issu...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC206; 2006(4)AWC4224; [2006(110)FLR856]; (2007)ILLJ70All
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J. 1. It is now 24 years since the employee in the Elgin Mill No. 2, at Kanpur, sustained an injury in his left eye resulting in diminishing of the vision and has still not been granted compensation. The Government is supposed a Model Employer and such inordinate delay is indefensible. It is surprising in the extreme that the Medical Board despite the finding ( see page 8/8 of the medical board Report) that there was disablement of permanent nature in the vision of the left eye of the worker did not report the disablement of any kind as provided in the provisions of the Act.2. The Entry in Second Schedule under Section 2(15A) and 15B of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as the then in force with regard to loss of vision and earning capacity is as follows:At Serial No. 32:- Lass of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal- Percentage of loss of Earning capacity-30. 3. Clearly, therefore, with regard to schedule...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Nawab HussaIn
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC434; 2007ACJ370
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the employee at Kanpur on 23.11.83 sustained an employment injury in his left eye resulting in diminution of vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent worker during the hours of his employment, suffered an injury in his left eye. The eye surgeon to whom the worker was referred, examined his eye in L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur (Government Hospital) found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the left eye as a result of that injury. Respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability in his left eye due to that injury in consequence whereof, there was also no loss of his earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker challenged this decision of the Board by filing the appeal as provided in Section 54A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and t...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Parsu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC177
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the respondent-employee at Kanpur, sustained a blunt injury in his right eye resulting in diminution of the vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-worker who was referred to an Eye Surgeon at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur on examination of his eyes (Government Hospital) had found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the right eye as a result of that injury. The respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability due to the aforesaid injury and in consequence whereof, no loss of earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker, challenged the aforesaid decision of the Board by filing an appeal as provided in Section 54A of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the E.S.I. Court reversed the view of the Medical Board, placing reliance on the repor...
Sita Ram S/O Sri Kamta Prasad Vs. Sri Dhar Son of Sri Mulu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC255
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. A civil appeal being number 5195 pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional District Judge Jalaun at Orai was dismissed by the Presiding Officer on 2.3.2002, subsequent to, dismissal of appellant's (plaintiffs) application for adjournment.2. The appellant did not apply for restoration of appeal within the Prescribed period of 30 days and thereafter made an application Under Section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal which the court dismissed, vide the impugned order dated 27.9.2004, and that is how the appellant has come up before this Court by filing this appeal.3. Counsel for the parties have been heard.4. Presiding Officer has, in his order, mentioned that the appeal had been pending for the last 7 years numerous adjournments were taken by the appellant and on 21.2.2002 when an application was moved by the appellant for adjournment it was clarified in the order that it is the last adjournment and no furthe...
Ajeet Singh Alias Muraha Son of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ170
B.S. Chauhan, J.ISSUES BEFORE THE FULL BENCH : 1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2000, referred two questions to a larger Bench for determination/answer, namely;1. Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by this Court only in rarest of rare cases as observed in Satyapal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000 Cr.LJ. 569, or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 1994CriLJ1981 ?2. Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal's case was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by this Court?BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES : 2. The petitioner Ajit Singh filed this writ petition for quashing the First Information Report dated 19.05.2000 (Annex.l) registered as Case Crime No. 144 of 2000, under Sections 323, 504...
Chaudhary Shankar Singh Son of Late Balram Singh Retired Additional Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR858]
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Chaudhary Shankar Singh, seeks the following reliefs:(a) Writ order or direction to the respondent No. 1 to allow the benefit of the provisions of Civil Service Regulation Article 474A(b), which provides the benefit of 30 years as qualifying service for full pension notionally for 27 1/2 years of service to claim full pension at 55 years retirement age besides the petitioner may be allowed the consequential benefits as well which is based on law.(Annexure-No.12 to the writ petition). (b) Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to pay 50% of minimum of the revised pay scale for the post of A.D.M.(J) last held by the petitioner, which is Rs. 10000 x 30/60 = Rs. 5000/- per month from 1-1-1996, as per G.O. Dated 13-4-2000 based on recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, as adopted by the U.P. State Government.(c) Writ order or direction in the nature of ...
J.K. Singh S/O Late Sri Laxmi Singh and ors. Vs. Sri Ram Dayal Son of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4283
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The appellants have filed this contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has observed as under:'Upon issuance of notice affidavits have been exchanged and prima facie a triable case under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act has made out against the following persons:1. Sri J. K. Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Basti.2. Sri Ram Adhar Prasad, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Deoria (Conservator of Forest, East Region)3. Sri P. N. Shukla, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Basti4. Sri N. K. Singh, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Harraiya5. Sri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Gorakhpur (Conservator of Forest, East Region)6. Sri Rambaran, Forest Circle Officer, Basti7. Sri Alok Kumar Saxena, Forest Circle Officer, Kaptanganj and all the seven should be p...
Ashok Kumar S/O Sri Mithai Lal Vs. the State of U.P. Through Excise Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3682
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.2. The petitioner participated in the excise auction in respect of Group Excise Shops of District Mau for the Excise Year 1992-93. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 9,35,000/- (Rupees nine lac thirty five thousand only) were illegally forfeited under order of the Collector, Mau dated 30th March, 1992. Feeling aggrieved by such forfeiture order of the Collector, Mau, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 951 (Tax) of 1992. This Court allowed the writ petition, by means of the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1994 and the order of forfeiture was quashed. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow was directed to consider the application for refund of the forfeited amount, if an application is made within six months from the date of the order (A copy of the judgment and order of this Court dated 29...
Dharam Raj Singh Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3987
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. The above-mentioned writ petitions relate to the same matter in issue and Involve common questions of law and facts, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Mathur and other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenants and Sri B.K. Saxena, advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 10, landlords.3. Through these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, passed on 1.4.1991 and the judgment and order dated 26.11.1991, passed by the revisional court, i.e., IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, confirming the judgment and order of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court. The learned courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-landlords for ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the premises bearing No. 493/72 situate at Mausamganj (Daliganj a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »