Allahabad Court January 2007 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.
Chandra Pal Shukla S/O Sri Ram Autar Shukla Vs. Labour Court (V),
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1083; [2007(112)FLR845]; (2007)IILLJ644All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 12.9.1984 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court (V) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1981.3. The case of the workman petitioner was that respondent No. 3 M/s Kanpur Sahkari Milk Board Limited, Nirala Nagar, Kanpur the employer had terminated his services illegally on 5.5.1978.4. According to the workman he worked till 4.5.1978 and since 5.5.1978 he was not permitted to join his duty while according to the employer the workman worked only until 3.5.1978 and thereafter he absented himself for four days i.e. 4, 5, 6 and 7 May 1978 hence on 8.5.1978 against his name in the attendance register, it was mentioned that 'abandoned the job'. The Labour Court held that workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.5. The contention of the employer was that according to the certified standing orders, if a workman remained absent for 4 days his services automaticall...
Ram Singh S/O Sri Laljit Vs. Vii Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All102; 2007(2)AWC1362
S.U. Khan, J.1. In spite of sufficient service contesting respondents did not engage any counsel, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard on 22.11.2006 when the case was heard and judgment was reserved.2. One Alam sold the agricultural property in dispute having an area of 3 Bighas 14 Biswas to the petitioner. The sale deed was executed on 8.8.1967 and was registered on 12.9.1967. Thereafter on 19.10.1967 Data Ram (since deceased and survived by respondents 4 to 9), one of the creditors of Alam, the vendor filed an application under Section 9 of Provincial Insolvency Act for adjudging Alam Insolvent Application was allowed on 20.2.1969. Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 18.4.1970. Thereafter official Receiver filed an application on 9.12.1970 for annulment of sale deed dated 8.8.1967 under Section 53 of Provincial Insolvency Act. By virtue of the said section sale deed executed within two years before filing of Insolvency Petition is...
Kamal Kishor Khullar Vs. Iind Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1085
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Gorakhpur, allowing amendment of defendant in the written statement as well as counter claim and permitting plaintiff to file written statement to the counter claim within 15 days and the revisional court's order dated 26th March, 2001 dismissing the revision preferred against the said order.2. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction to restrain defendant from opening the door as well as restraining defendant from making any construction over the land in suit. Further relief claimed in the plaint was to issue a mandatory injunction to defendant to close the door and windows at the places mentioned in the plaint map. A written statement was filed by the defendant on 13.5.1991 denying plaintiffs allegation in the plaint. It further transpires from the record that the defendant filed an amendment appl...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Anil Kumar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST80(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 10, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. It appears that for both the assessment years, assessment orders were passed ex parte. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') filed applications under Section 30 of the Act to reopen the ex parte assessment orders. The applications under Section 30 of the Act were rejected and against the said orders, appeals were filed. First appellate authority allowed the applications and set aside the orders passed under Section 30 of the Act and reopened the cases and directed the assessing authority to pass the assessment orders afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the dealer. In pursuance of the appellate orders, assessing authority passed the assessment orders. The dealer challenged the assessment orders on th...
Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir Uchchtt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC671
Vineet Saran, J.1. By means of Government Order dated 7.9.2006, applications were invited from permanently recognized unaided Junior High Schools for being taken on grant-in-aid of the State Government. The eligibility criteria of the applicants were mentioned in the said Government order. One such condition enumerated in paragraph 2 (13) was that only institutions imparting education from classes 6 to 8 would be eligible to apply, meaning thereby that those institutions which were imparting education to classes lower than class 6 or classes higher than class 8 would not be entitled to apply. Pursuant to the said Government order, an advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Basic Education on 9.9.2006, inviting applications from eligible institutions, in which also a similar condition was imposed, being condition No. 12.2. Aggrieved by the said condition, nine educational institutions have filed this writ petition primarily with the prayer for quashing the condition No. 2 (13) co...
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramavati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC679
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This revision challenges the order dated 17.11.1997 passed by the court below rejecting petitioner's application moved under Section 29A of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the 'Act').2. A piece of land, which is in dispute, was leased out by the opposite party-landlord to the revisionist-M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 1.11.1956 for twenty years, which lasted till 30.10.1976. It was renewed for a further period of twenty years with expiry date as 30.10.1996. The present Suit No. 162 of 1996 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Mirzapur on 28.10.1996 for petitioner-revisionist's eviction and the lease was not further renewed after its expiry. The suit was contested by the revisionist stating that since it had raised constructions of permanent nature over the land, its eviction after notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act simplicitor is not possible and the su...
Pankaj Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC684
A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, senior advocate assisted by Sri R. K. Pathak, advocate and Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Ms. Archana Srivastava, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 6 is not a necessary or proper party. This writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage without calling for counter-affidavit.2. Vide para 9 of the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner (Pankaj Tiwari) obtained licence under the Seeds Act, 1966 for running a processing plant. There is no dispute that the said licence was obtained as required under the Seeds (Control Order, 1983. It is also not disputed that the licence was obtained under Clause 3 of the said Order, 1983 which requires dealers to obtain licence. It is also not disputed that under the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed Form 'A'. Under Clause 7 of the said Form A there is a Note which reads 'Wher...
Ralua Son of Sri Chiranji, Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All104
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. By the Impugned order dated 4.10.2006, the court below has allowed the objections of the opposite parry No. 1 holding that the additional amount of compensation which was payable Under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the), Act does not fetch interest as provided Under Section 28 of the Act.3. Sri Jain counsel for the revisionist submits that since the amount awarded Under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is also part of the compensation, it would in all fairness fetch the interest as provided Under Section 28 of the Act and the order of the court below not permitting such interest on that amount, is wholly misconceived and is against the law.4. I do not agree with the aforesaid submissions of Sri Jain counsel for the applicant.5. The two relevant provisions of Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the Act are quoted below:Section 23(1-A)(1-A) In addition to the market value o...
Sanjay Shanker Manwal Vs. Lucknow University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1460
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, a removed employee of Lucknow University, who is present in person. Sri I. B. Singh, learned standing counsel for Lucknow University has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties and put forth his version.2. Under challenge is an order of removal passed on 30.11.2006 by the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner to inquire into an incident which took place in the office of Registrar, Sri K.N. Pandey, Lucknow on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. It was alleged that Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, entered the office of Registrar on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. He was hurling abuses and asking for attendance register. He misbehaved with Dr. K.N. Pandey, Registrar of Lucknow University, in the presence of Sri H.K. Gupta Superintendent. It has been alleged that Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, had brought a plastic bottle containing petrol mixed with kerosene oil. He threw it on Dr. K.N. Pandey...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Pushpa Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR421(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in upholding the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) action in cancelling the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on February 27, 1989, for the assessment year 1982-83?2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1986-87.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:(i) The assessee is a trust created by Brig. Kapil Mohan, who had gifted 60,000 equity shares of M.M. Ltd., for the benefit of beneficiaries, i.e., the first son of Shri Rakesh Mohan by a duly executed trust deed dated May 22, 1973. At the time of creation of the trust, Shri Rakesh Mohan was himself a minor and had no son. It was further provided in the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »