Allahabad Court April 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.
Smt. Shyam Sundari Wife of Bachcha Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through the C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All187
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be a social worker and relief sought is to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11/3/2007 (Annex-1) for inclusion of names of the persons in the voter list no Legislative Assembly constituency Sirathu District Kaushambi so that the public interest at large be protected.2. Shri C.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Barge number of persons have filed applications for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls/voter list; applications have been submitted in Forms as required under the rules, but no action is being taken and large number persons are likely to be deprived of their valuable right to vote. Therefore petition deserves to be allowed and direction be issued to the respondents to include the names of such persons in the voter list forthwith.3. On the other hand Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel and Shri P.N. Rai appearing for the respondent...
Rustom Khusro Sapurji Gandhi and ors. Vs. Amrit Abhijat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All149; 2007(3)AWC2777
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. This matter has come up before this Full Bench by the order dated 19th September, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice upon a reference dated 19th August, 2006 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge framed and referred the following four questions:(1) Whether a Co-ordinate Bench while hearing a Public Interest Litigation can issue directions without impleading the affected party which has the effect of taking away the impact of the final decision in favour of such party by a Bench of the same strength.(2) Whether the directions dated 14-7-2006 and 31-7-2006 of the Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005) run counter to and impede the implementation of the final decision dated 25-5-1998 in Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994 and the decision dated 24-8-2005 in Writ Petition No. 20379 of 2003 keeping in view the fact that the order dated 5-11-2002 had not been quashed.(3) Whether the High Court ...
Rustom Khusro Sapurji Gandhi and ors. Vs. Amrit Abhijit, D.M. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR610(All)]; 2007(5)AIRKarR4; AIR2007All149(FB)(All)
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. This matter has come up before this Full Bench by the order dated 19th September, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice upon a reference dated 19th August, 2006 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge framed and referred the following four questions:(1) Whether a Coordinate Bench while hearing a Public. Interest Litigation can issue directions without impleading the affected party which has the effect of taking away the impact of the final decision in favour of such party by a Bench of the same strength.(2) Whether the directions dated 14.7.2006 and 31.7.2006 of the Division Bench in the Public Interes't Litigation (Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005), run counter to and impede the implementation of the final decision dated 25.5.1998, in Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994 and the decision dated 24.8.2005 in Writ Petition No. 20379 of 2003, keeping in view the fact that the order dated 5.11,2002 had not been quashed.(3) Whether the High Co...
Smt. Ram Basi and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3345
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Sheo Murat Singh was the original tenure holder. He was having agricultural land in ten villages including villages Amva Buzurg and Titariya. Proceedings, under U.P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated against him. The prescribed authority declared certain area of land held by original tenure holder as surplus. Against the said order, appeal was filed, which was partly allowed by A.D.J, on 7.5.1976. The appellate court held that tenure-holder possessed 32.87 acres of land as surplus in terms of irrigated land. The appellate court remanded the matter to the prescribed authority for the reason that the original tenure holder had contended therein that he was entitled to hold 18 acres land, hence his land in villages Amva Buzurg and Titariya, area of which was 18.04 acres, should be permitted to be retained by him and the declared surplus land shall be taken from his land held by him in other villages. T...
Partantra Vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3533
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The appellant who is the maternal uncle of a minor male child of 4 years named Honey (Hani in the pleadings) has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.7.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Aligarh allowing the application of father for handing over the custody of the child to him in preference to maternal uncle's possession.3. As per learned Counsel for the appellant, appellant's sister got married to the respondent, Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta on 21.11.1997 and out of the wedlock a son named Honey was born on 20.8.1998. Unfortunately, appellant's sister had died in December, 1998 leaving behind an infant, i.e., Honey. At the time of death, appellant's sister was living with her parents.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that husband of Smt. Rupa Varshney, Sanjay Kumar Gupta had re-married in Apri...
Dharamveer Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3904
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. In this group of petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the proceedings initiated against them under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These petitions relate to the allotment of the shops/canteen in the Naveen Mandi Sthal, Saharanpur and Muzaffarnagar. Since the issue involved is one and the same, these groups of writ petitions are being decided together. For convenience, the facts in the case of Dharamveer for Saharanpur district and writ petition of Prem Chandra for Muzaffarnagar district are being taken into consideration. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop on the basis of an allotment order issued by the Chairman of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Initially, the tenancy was on a month to month basis, on a rent of Rs. 600 per month, but later on, it was enhanced to Rs. 1,840 per month. It is al...
Jangipur Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR175]; (2008)ILLJ418All
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is a Society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Proceedings under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, were initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for the alleged illegal deduction of the wages. The Prescribed Authority passed an order to proceed exparte and there after passed an order under Section 15 of the Act. 2. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The short submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the Payment of Wages Act, is not applicable upon the petitioner's society, inasmuch as, it is neither a factory nor a railway or an establishment and therefore, the petitioners are not covered under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Consequently, the authority had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satya Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: [2009]312ITR334(All)
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides.2. During the relevant assessment year, i.e., before the assessment year 1977-78, there was an Explanation below Section 271(1) (c) which provided that where the declared income was less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income there was a presumption of concealment which could be rebutted by the assessee by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in his part.3. For the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76, the assessee's declared income was less than the aforesaid limit of 80 per cent. of the assessed income. Accordingly, the presumption arose under the Explanation and it was required to be rebutted by the assessee.4. The assessee furnished an explanation for rebutting the presumption. With regard to such explanation the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its order date January 21, 1982, made the following observation:The whole thing appears to be a got up story to cover up the claim of the assessee for extra investment in the bu...
Smt. Ambuj Vs. Amir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2492
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The appeal is placed for admission under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has been heard in presence of learned Counsel appearing for all the contesting parties.2. This appeal has been made by the claimant on the ground that her claim petition has been rejected only on flimsy ground that husband of the appellant, who filed the claim petition, is not authorized agent of the injured. However, we have gone through Section 166(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and we find that an application for compensation can be filed by any agent duly authorized by the persons injured. A question arose whether without any appropriate supporting document the husband can be said to be an authorized agent or not. In this context, we have gone through two Division Bench judgments of different High Courts in Parmanand Thakur v. Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation 1987 ACJ 551 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. v. Punjab Roadways...
Tufail Ahmad S/O Shri Vakeel Ahmad and ors. Vs. the Chairman/Director ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1432; [2007(114)FLR83]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioners are permanent employees of Advance Air Conditioning Works (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor Company'), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which has undertaken work of maintenance of HVAC system, split and window Air Conditioning, Water Coller Machines and Refrigerators at GAIL Compressor Station, Dibiyapur.3. By the impugned orders, Gas Authority of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the GAIL') a Government of India undertaking has informed the petitioners that since they are permanent employees of Contractor, their services cannot be regularized by GAIL in their establishment.4. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction by means of this writ petition. Apart from other prayers, the petitioners have also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize their services...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »