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.
Onkar Nath Singh S/O Shri Ram Pati Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC539; [2007(112)FLR1203]
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the Labour Court's award dated 16.12.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Adjudication Case No. 41 of 1989. Through the said award termination order dated 20.5.1986 was set aside and the reinstatement of the petitioner was directed. However, towards back wages only a lump sum amount of Rs. 5000/- was awarded.3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the entire back wages should have been awarded. The Supreme Court in several authorities, including the authority of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni : (2006)IILLJ744SC has held that it is not necessary to award full back wages invariably along with reinstatement. In the instant case very cogent reason have been given by the Labour Court for not awarding full back wages. The most important circumstance is that the Union had agreed with the Management th...
Constable No. 126 Rajiv Chandra Kaushik Son of Shri Uma Shankar Chandr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC573
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 passed by Director General of Police U.P. Lucknow (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) Further issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13.4.2001 and 4.8.2001 passed by Director General of Police U.P. Lucknow to the extent by which the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Constable in armed police.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the civil police in the year 1993. Although the petitioner was inducted in the Civil Police, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, in exercise of power under Regulation 525 of the Police Regulation transferred the entire batch from Civil Police to Armed Police. It is relevant to state here that the aforesaid order was not a permanent order but the same was passed to resolve shortfall in armed police. The...
Mufees Son of BahauddIn Alias Bahado Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Km ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC22
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an application for quashing the order of interim maintenance dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Family Court, Agra in favour of the opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 129 of 2004 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the applicant Mufees and Smt. Zeenal were husband and wife and admittedly a divorce had taken place between them on 9.12.2003. Km. Anam, who is their daughter, aged about one and half years in the year 2004, filed an application for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. The application was contested by the applicant. A prayer was also made for awarding interim maintenance vide application paper No. 6B and in that application it was also alleged that the father of Km. Anam was earning Rs. 10000/- per month from the business of shoes and Rs. 5000/- per month as rent. The applicant in his objection had taken a plea that under Section 3(l)(b) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divo...
Sarju Barai and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC893
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard earned Counsel for the petitioners. At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list.2. Initially against the impugned orders this petition was filed as F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 1979. Thereafter an application was filed that permission might be granted to convert the appeal in to writ petition. On 31.10.1983 permission was granted, hence it was converted in to a writ petition.3. Plaintiff-respondent Surendra Nath Tiwari filed suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 55 of 1969) against Ram Lakhan, who was arrayed as defendant No. 1 and the petitioners, who were arrayed as subsequent purchasers/defendants 2 to 7. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement for sale allegedly executed by Ram Lakhan. During pendency of suit Ram Lakhan died. On 30.5.1977 plaintiff filed an application praying therein that against the name of Ram Lakhan in the array of the parties the word 'dead' be added. Ob...
Kalua Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1246
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to Khata No. 6 comprising of plot Nos. 1592, 1595, 1621, 2016, 2022, 2025 and 2026. The name of the petitioner stood recorded in the basic year entry in respect of the aforesaid khata. The respondent No. 3 filed his objection under Section 9A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming 1/2 share on the ground that the disputed land was an ancestral property and stood recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed their objection claiming to be co-tenure holders with the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 examined himself and one Ram Ratan. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 examined one Buchaiyan and Ram Kripal in oral evidence. The petitioner gave his statement alongwith Ram Ashrey, Zakir All, Hamid Khan. He also examined Assistant Record Keeper and Smt. Raniya, widow of Chunkaiyan. Irrigation slip...
iftikhar HusaIn Son of Sri Nazeer HusaIn and Smt. Kulsum Bibi W/O Nawa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC814
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Ramendra Ashthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Ashthana Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The dispute relates to Kliata No. 72 of village Mahwa, Pargana Bara, District Allahabad which was entered in the name of Nazim Husain as Sirdari holding. Admittedly, Ilahi was common ancestor of the petitioner and respondents. In CH Form 5-A Sadiq Husain, Nawab Husain, Mohammad Husain, Zakir Husain, Nawab Husain and Lftikhar Husain were shown as co-tenants. During commencement of the consolidation proceedings, Nazim Husain-respondent filed objection on the ground that his brother Saddiq Husain and Sadiq Husain were co-tenants but entries in respect of the petitioner No. 1, Nawab Husain, Mohd. Husain and Zakir Husain were disputed. Mohd. Husain and Zakir Husain did not file any objection. Thus the controversy remained between the petitioners and contesting respondents. The petitioners claimed co-tenancy right in the entire Kliata and al...
Shri Nirbhay Mehrotra Son of Late Sri K.N. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR367]
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Director (Finance) in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, was dismissed from service vide order dated 9.12.1994. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 7 of 1995 before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Since the matter could not be reconciled, a reference was made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to the Tribunal, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 3 of 1999. The reference was as to whether the dismissal of the workman Sri Nirbhay Mehrotra was proper and legal and, if not, what relief would he be entitled to The Tribunal, thereafter, vide award dated 18.7.2000, held that since Sri Mehrotra could not be termed as a workman under the definition provided in the Act, hence th...
Rajesh Kumar Pandey Son of Late Sri Hari Prasad Pandey and Babu Ram So ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR14]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 30.7.2001 published on 23.1.2003. By the impugned award the claim of the petitioners-workmen for regularization on the post of Clerk grade 11 and payment of salary for the aforesaid post was refused by the Labour Court.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Khalasi' on compassionate ground. Their case was that since they were qualified, work of clerk was allocated to them i.e. doing of 'Pairvi' of the Court cases filed before the High Court as well as before the Labour Court etc. but corresponding pay scale was not given to them. A dispute was raised by the petitioners before the Regional Conciliation Officer. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Allahabad where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 3 of 2002.D;k lsok;...
Kamla Son of Mahadeo Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Rama Shanker, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1257
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Aditya Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent,.2. The order dated 17.7.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) is impugned in the instant writ petition.3. The dispute relates to plot No. 314 of Khata No. 245 of village Asbalpur, District Varanasi. The petitioner was recorded a Sirdar in the basic year. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the petitioner are descendants of the common ancestor Ram Phal. Pedigree has been detailed in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition When the consolidation proceedings were started, two sets of objections were filed. First set of objection under Section 9 of U.P. Holdings and Consolidation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was preferred by two sons of Mahabir claiming one third share. Second set of objection was filed by the respondents, who are sons of Jagardeo. The petitioner is son of Mahadeo and two other sons na...
Shri Deepak Kumar S/O Shri Kisan Lal and Smt. Nirmala W/O Shri Deepak ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC622
Vinod Prasad, J.1. A couple, Deepak Kumar and Smt. Nirmala, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(herein in after referred to as the Code) and have preferred this criminal Misc. Application No. 7056 of 2005, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.9.04, by which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad has summoned them for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, (herein after referred to as the Act) in complaint case No. 7136 of 2004, Rajbir Singh v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. The ancillary prayer is for stay of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case pendent Lite.2. The encapsulated facts of the case, as is perceptible from the complaint (Annexure No. 4), filed by complainant Rajbir Singh respondent No. 2 are that the complainant is an employee of Air Force and Kishan Lal, father of the applicant No. l Deepak Kumar, was his neighbour and was serving as a civil defence personnel. Applicant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »