Allahabad Court March 2007 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1538; 2007(2)AWC1927
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and award dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 676 of 2004.2. Right to appeal of an aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal is available under Section 173 of the Act. The dispute in respect of the claim of compensation was contested between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle and ultimately the award was passed in favour of the claimants to be paid by the appellant insurance company on behalf of the owner.3. In the court below an application was filed by the appellant insurance company herein, under Section 170 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') taking a plea that the owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the claimants, which was dismissed on 15.11.2006 having no materials. No appeal nor any other proceeding challenging such order was made by appellant herein. But appeal is preferred from the award. As and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalawati (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Upper District and Sessions Judge and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2194
S.U. Khan, J.1. Head learned Counsel for the parties. Landlord respondent No. 2--Purshottam Narain purchased the property in dispute from its previous owner landlord on 27.8.1977. Petitioners were tenants in the said property since before the said date. Thereafter in the year 1978 new landlord respondent No. 2 Purshottam Narain filed release application against tenant-petitioners under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was rejected on the ground that it had been filed within three years from the date of purchase. Thereafter second release application was filed on 29.9.1980. The said application was registered as U.P.U.B. Case No. 94 of 1980. Prescribed authority/1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh rejected the release application on 23.9.1982. Against the said order landlord-respondent No. 2 filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 91 of 1982. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Aligarh allowed the appeal on 5.2.198...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2316
Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.1. This petition has been placed before this Bench by the order dated 29.3.2007 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. We have heard Shri R.P. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate, learned A.G.A. and Shri B. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Election Commission of India.3. This petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Region, Agra, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and the District Magistrate, Agra to provide security to the petitioner till the completion of the election of Fatehgarh constituency of U.P. Legislative Assembly or any other relief the petitioner may be found entitled to by this Hon'ble Court.4. It is significant to note that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the petitioner has four persons, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Brahmchari Sharma, Shilendra Singh and Rakesh Bhardwaj, having fire arm lice...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Harbans Lal Dua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2319
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Both these connected Civil Revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1925, arise out of a judgment of the Additional District Judge, court No. 3, Agra dated 22.9.2006 in S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 2000 between Harbans Lal Dua v. State Bank of India, by which the suit was decreed for arrears of rent of Rs. 4,02,348.99 and mesne profit w.e.f. 22.5.2000 at the rate of Rs. 7,369 per month, and for eviction with direction to defendant-tenant to hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff within three months.2. By an interim order dated 28.10.2006 the revisionist-bank was directed to deposit Rs. 7,60,000 in the account of the respondent-landlord within one month. The decree of eviction was not stayed as the trial court had granted time to the bank to vacate the premise upto 21.12.2006. By an interim order dated 15.1.2007 a direction was issued that till the next date the arrears of rent and mesne profit deposited by the bank in ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Chaturvedi S/O Late Sri Roop Kishor Chaturvedi, Store-in-charge, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)SLJ508(NULL)
Sabhajeet Yadav, J. 1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.1997 passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 15.11.1997 passed by respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.9.1998 issued by Secretary/General Manager Etawah Unit contained in Annexure-9and 15 respectively to writ petition. Vide order dated 4.1.1997 while working on the post of store incharge in U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. Etawah the petitioner has been dismissed from service and vide order dated 15.11.1997 the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 and vide communication letter dated 23.9.1998 the aforesaid order passed in appeal of the petitioner has been communicated to him. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was appointed as store incharge in U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Etawah in pursuance of appointment letter dated 25.8.1982. It is stated that 11 Cooperative Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Singh S/O Late Binda Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR637]
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2004 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 15.2.1988 and in the year 1995, he was posted as Constable-Driver. In the year 1998, he was posted in G.R.P, Lucknow. In June, 2004, he was transferred to 44th Battalion P.A.C Merrut from 12th Battalion P.A.C Fatehpur. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding any departmental enquiry in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after-referred to as Rules).3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the perusal of the impugned order it clearly goes to show that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of some past mis...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Neelu Kohli Daughter of Late Heera Lal Suri Vs. Nikhil Rubbers Pv ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(All)332; [2009]91SCL202(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This is an appeal by Smt. Neelu Kohli, (the applicant before the Company Law Board) under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the orders of the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 02.6.2006 and 15. 11.2006 in Company Petition No. 27 of 1997 under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board recorded a memorandum on 02.6.2006, of the alleged agreement between the panics to settle the matter, and that by order dated 09.10.2006 the application of Smt. Neelu Kohli, the appellant filed on 06.6.2006, to either modify or recall her consent to the order was dismissed.2. Smt. Neelu Kohli, the appellant is the divorced wife of Shri Naveen Kohli, respondent No. 2. There were matrimonial differences between them for a long period of time. Shri Naveen Kohli, respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for divorce. The family Court ordered dissolution of marriage, which was solemnized on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonbhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director and Mr. Jagmander Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas826(All); [2008]82SCL19(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. M/s Sonbhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd (SMPL) a private limited company with its registered office at 14/364 Ram Mandir Colony. Obra District Sonbhadra, and its Director Mr. Jagmander Sen Agrawal have prayed to recall the directions dated 5.7.2006 and order dated 20.9.2006 in Civil Misc. Objection Application No. ____of 2005 filed on behalf of RPJ Minerals Private Limited (RPJMPL) and Civil Misc. Objection Application No. ___of 2005 filed by U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd (UPSMDC) in Civil Misc. Application No. 4 of 1997 (in the matter of liquidation of U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd) in respect of Bari and Baghmanwa Dolomite mines and to pass any such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The application was filed on 12.12.2006. On the same day the notices were accepted by Official Liquidator, State of U.P., UPSMDC and Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL). The matter was heard on 19.12.2006, when the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. S/S Subham Cane Crusher
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST104(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Acf') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24.02.2001 relating to the assessment year 2000-01.2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'Dealer') was involved in the manufacturing of khandsari, gur ruskat etc. and was registered both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. Dealer appears to have manufactured the gur in its factory and applied for the registration of High Speed Diesel Oil under Central Sales Tax Act for the purchase at concessional rate of tax on the ground that they were required for the production of gur. Assessing authority denied the benefit of High Speed Diesel Oil on the ground that High Speed Diesel Oil was being used in the operation of the generator for the generation of the electricity. Order of the assessing authority has been upheld in first appeals. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeals and held...
Tag this Judgment!Ajab Lal Vs. Rakesh Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All158; 2007(3)AWC2783
ORDERA.P. Sahi, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1995-96 and it is alleged that in spite of the restraint order, and the subsequent orders passed by the Board, the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in particular have proceeded to raise construction over the land in dispute. It is further alleged that the other opposite parties, have abetted the same by permitting the raising of such constructions hence a clear case of contempt is made out making the opposite parties liable for the same and therefore, this Court should proceed in exercise of its power under Article 215 read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the opposite parties for wilfully and deliberately defying the orders passed by the Board of Revenue.2. Notices were issued by this Court on 9-4-04 calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to answer this contempt petition. The opposite party No. 1 who is the Su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »