Allahabad Court September 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.
Rama Shankar Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC319
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed release application, registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 1998 Rama Shankar v. Shiv Prasad and Ors. under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of shop in the possession of tenant-respondents.3. It appears from the order sheet of the case appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that adjournments have been granted and dates have been fixed in the case on the grounds that advocates are on strike; Court is vacant; no time is left for the Court to deal with the matter; Presiding Officer is on leave; he is busy elsewhere and so on. Almost eight years have elapsed but the case has not been heard and decided. in the meantime, one of the parties has died and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted.4. Proceedings before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are summary in nat...
Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs. Ganga Shankar Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4134
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed original suit No. 53 of 1997 against the petitioner for ejectment from one shop in ground floor in premises of 104/159 Sisamau, Kanpur Nagar. The suit was decreed ex parte by order dated 24.12.1997.3. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid order dated 24.12.1997 he moved a restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. It is stated that a compromise was entered into between the parties outside the Court wherein it was agreed that respondent would file the compromise in the Court but it was not filed.5. The trial court vide order dated 21.9.2003 dismissed the aforesaid application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. without considering the merit of the application on the ground that there was no compliance of Section 17(1) of the Act.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.9.2003 of the trial court, the petitioner...
Gajendra Kumar Pandey Son of Late Ram Sakal Pandey Vs. State of U.P. T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR678]
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. We have heard Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 24.8.2006 whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2006 of the appellant has been dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that pursuant to the order dated 29.3.1989 passed by the Secretary, Non Conventional Energy Development Agency, U.P. Lucknow, the petitioner-appellant was engaged on a sanctioned post of Peon on daily wage basis vide order dated 31.3.1989/1.4.1989 by the Pariyojna Adhikari, NEDA, Kanpur and since then he is continuously working in Class-IV on daily wage basis. It is further contended that since the post is duly sanctioned and for the last more than 15 years he is working, therefore, he is also entitled to get salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to Class-IV Employee. The respondent...
Surya Prasad Tripathi Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3123
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Dr. R. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner who has sought review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8594 (S/S) of 1990 on October 15, 2004.2. It emerges from record that the petitioner was engaged under Regulation 5 (3) of U. P. Co-operative Services Rules, 1975. Under this provision, ad hoc temporary appointments are made for a stipulated period. The petitioner's services were terminated on 16.6.1980. Being aggrieved against the order of termination, a reference was made to the learned labour court at the instance of a bunch of employees. The following reference was made to the labour court for adjudication:D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius Jfed lw;Z izlkn f=ikBh iq= Jh EHkw n;ky f=ikBh DydZ&de;&dSf;j dh fnukad 16-6-80 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk @ vuqrks fjfyQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr 3. The Labour Court, Lucknow vide order dated 4.12.1989 has a...
Accro Sales Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST553(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 December 28, 1996 relating to the assessment year 1991-92.2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of DMO and mentha oil. Applicant had sold DMO and mentha oil against bill No. 36 dated January 12, 1992 for Rs. 2,08,800 to M/s. Essential Oil and Chemical, Nainital Road, Bareilly. When the goods were in transit, they were checked by Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, on January 12, 1992. At the time of checking, bill was produced by the driver of the vehicle. It appears that the goods were detained on the ground that the bill was found doubtful and show-cause notice was issued. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, applicant appeared and produced stock register, purchase vouchers and the bill book. It was explained that the impugned goods, which were sold have been purchased fro...
Shamsher Singh Vs. Bindhyavasini Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1342
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Although the Impugned order before us dated 24.8.2006 is only an interim order, it is set-aside and the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration by his Lordship.2. With due respect, the order does not follow an essential salutary principle which should be observed in these circumstances. Whenever a substantive relief granting or relief refusing interim order is passed, even if it is intended to hold only for a limited period of time, it is essential for the Hon'ble single Judge to give short and intelligible reasons as to why his Lordship felt persuaded, prima facie, either to grant the relief or to withhold it, as the case might be. The expression of the Hon'ble single Judge's mind serves at least two important purposes; first, the way his Lordship exercised his discretion, becomes known to the Court of appeal and according to the present state of law where reliefs are granted or withheld in a substantive way, t...
Raja Ram S/O Hub NaraIn Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC964
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The dispute in the instant writ petition is regarding allotment of chak after completion of the consolidation proceedings. It is an admitted fact that there was partition between the ancestors of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 long before the commencement of the consolidation operation In the basic year, the respondent no 6 Doodh Nath was was recorded over several plots of Khata No, 30 including plot No. 212-and Plot No 242M. whereas the petitioner and his brother Sita Ram stood recorded over several plots of Khata No. 115 including plot No. 212/1. The entire share of plot No. 242M was transferred by means of a sale deed by the petitioner to six different persons but the entire area of plot No. 212/1 having an area of 12 Bissau was retained by him. The plot No. 212/1 and plot No. 212/2 were two different plots which was situated adjacent to Jigra Hargarh Road, each having an area of 12 Bissau. When the consolidation ...
Marshal Securities Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sri Indrapal Sin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR928]
Vineet Saran, J.1. The moot question for determination of this Court in this writ petition is as to whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner') has power to review his own Award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act').2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of supply of security guards. On request of Respondent No. 4 Vinod Agarwal of M/s Agarwal Iron and Steel Company Ltd., the petitioner firm supplied some security guards, including two gun-men, out of whom Raj Kumar Singh, husband of Respondent No. 3 was one, who was shot dead while on duty. The case of the petitioner, however, is that at the time of the incident the services of the deceased gun-man were being utilized by the Respondent No. 4 for personal use and as such he could not be treated to be on duty. The respondent No. 3 Kamlesh, wife of late Raj Kumar Singh, then filed a claim under the Act for compensation of ...
Ram Autar Alias Sri Sri Autar Son of Rameshwar Vs. Deputy Director of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1269
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri H.S.N Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. On the basis of facts detailed in the writ petition, the disputed Khatas No. 20, 1, 20B etc. were recorded in the name of the petitioner and Awadh Naram. Domri and Bandhu, Khata No. 24 and 99 were recorded in the name of Mst. Dulari, widow of Shiv Pujan, Deep Narain, Jagat Narain and Basu. The respondent No. 4 filed his objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of Khata Nos. 20 and 20B claiming 1/4th share on the ground that Mst. Dulari had executed a gift deed for movable and immovable property in the name of Smt. Prabhawati, wife of respondent No. 4. Another objection was filed by the petitioner in respect of Khata Nos. 24 and 99 claiming that there was a registered will dated 9.5.1950 executed in his favour as well as Smt. Prabhawati Devi. He claimed his right as son ...
Srinath Mishra Vs. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1398; [2006(111)FLR1066]
Vineet Saran, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.7.2003 and 20.4.2004 passed by labour court, Allahabad whereby his application under Section 6H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected.2. The brief facts of this case are that on 25.5.1985 the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the electricity department of the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. However, after 10.12.1986 the Nagar Nigam stopped taking work from the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court, Allahabad and registered as Adjudication Case No. 113 of 1987. By an award dated 21.11.1988, the termination of the services of the petitioner was set aside and the Nagar Nigam was directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. In the year 1994 the petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2)/6H(2) before the labour court for p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »