Allahabad Court August 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Through the General Manager, North Eastern Railwa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1695
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. List revised. Heard Sri Lalji Sinha learned Counsel for the appellant. No one turns up for the respondent.2. This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration. It was dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed by the lower appellate court.3. Sri Sinha raised only one point that the suit was barred by time and as such was not liable to be decreed. The cause of action for the suit had arisen on 16.5.1964 after the enforcement of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The time prescribed for filing the suit for declaration is only 3 years under Article 58 of the new Act. The suit was instituted in the year 1969 and as such was patently barred by time. The lower appellate court has manifestly erred in law in according the benefit of Section 30 of the new Act and treating the limitation for the suit to be 7 years from the commencement of the new Act.4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that that the plaintiff was worki...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC200
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The appeal was placed for disposal in the final list. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company contended before this Court that its liability is limited as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He relied upon the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Prembai Patel and Ors. JT 2005 (4) SC 399 : 2005 (3) AWC 2126 (SC). By relying upon this judgment he contended that when the liability of the insurance company is limited as per Section 147 of the Act having an effect of Workmen's Compensation Act, it is not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.2. We have carefully gone through the judgment and find that the same point was agitated in the appropriate court on the basis of the insurance policy when the Court found that liability is limited on the basis of the insurance policy and order was passed in favour of the insurance company. In the present case, no application under Section 170 of the Act was made by the p...
Mohammed Yusuf Son of Muzaffar HusaIn and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Prad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ493
Saroj Bali, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, in case No. 76 of 2001 Zeeshan v. Yusuf and Ors. whereby summoning the revisionists for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C..2. The facts giving rise to the revision broadly stated are these:An application under 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the Opposite Party No. 2 alleging that on 10.8.98 at about 1 P.M. the accused-revisionists came armed with lathi and sticks to the house of the complainant and using abusive language subjected him to assault with lathi, sticks, kicks and fists. The S.H.O., Chanadpur was directed by the A.C.J.M., II to register and investigate the allegations made in the application. The First Information Report was registered on 18.9.1998 as case Crime No. Nil of 1998 under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. After investigation final report wa...
Gulab Chand Kesari Son of Sri Hari Lal Kesari and Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1694
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioners contended before this Court that they were guarantors in taking Bank loan by the respondent no.4. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment reported in 2006 (10) AD J 52 (SC) Ashok Mahajan v. State of U.P. and Ors. the borrower have to be dealt with first before taking any action against the guarantor.2. We find from the aforesaid judgment that the alleged unpaid term loan amount is arising out of the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, Uttar Pradesh Limited (PICUP). The proceeding was initiated ultimately against the guarantor under Section 9 of the State Financial Act, 1951. The Supreme Court observed that Sections 3 & 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, as referred therein, clearly speak that the authority can not proceed against the guarantor until the property of the principal debtor is firstly sold of for the purpose of recovery of the dues. However, upon making such observation the matter was r...
Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union Through Its President Kamalapati Tripath ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR736]; (2008)ILLJ1089All
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Km. Sunita Rani Gupta and Shri V.R. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Ratan and Shri Piyush Bhargava for the respondents.2. The 'Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union Sathariya, Jaunpur has filed this writ petition through its President Shri Kamaiapati Tripathi for quashing the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur on a representation made by 'Hawkins Cookers Limited'-respondent No. 4 (the management) to set aside the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaunpur. By an amendment allowed by this Court on 16.12.2005, the petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi.3. The petitioner is a registered Union of the workmen affiliated with 'Centre of Indian Trade Union' (CITU), a Central Federation of Trade Unions. The Union submitted a demand letter dated 3.2.2...
Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojini Arawattigi W/O Late Dr. Samuel S. Arawattigi and D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ126
M.K. Mittal, J.1 Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Dr. (Mrs) Sarojini Arawatiigi and Dr. Vinay Arawattiigi for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7849 of 2004 Rashmi Harry v Dr. Vniay and Ors. under Section 498A IPC, P.S. Cantt, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagr2. I have heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and have perused the material available on record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 who is wife of applicant No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants. According to opposite party No. 2 she was married with applicant No. 2 according to Christian rites and applicant No. 1 is her mother in law. At the time of marriage, correct facts about the qualification of applicant No. 2 were not disclosed. However marriage ...
Smt. Chandrawati Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3579
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Facts giving rise to dispute are as under:In the basic year Avadhu, Parasuram, Panchu sons of Vindeshwari and Kalpa widow of Vindeshwari were recorded as 'bhumidhar'. After death of Kalpa, an objection was filed by Panchu, Parasuram and Avadhu claiming partition of the land in dispute. Another objection was filed by contesting respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and one Ram Bhajan claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession over the land in dispute. Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objection and vide order dated 28.11.1990 allowed the objection filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Ram Bhajan and directed their names to be recorded over the land in dispute. The order was challenged in appeal. Vide order dated 28.12.2001 Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.11.1990 and maintained the entry of name of Panchu, Parasuram...
Brij Gopal Binnani Son of Sri Kishun Gopal Binnani Vs. Smt. Rukmini De ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC746
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. The order dated 4.8.2006 dismissing the second appeal for want of prosecution was recalled on 17.4.2007. On the same day the substitution application of Shri Satyendra son of Shri Sri Gopal Binnani, appellant No. 1/1 was allowed, and Shri Babu Gopal Binnani son of Late Shri Brij Gopal Binnani respondent No. 4 was transposed as appellant on the ground, that he had succeeded to the estate of his father. The parties were heard and the judgment was reserved.2. This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 31.7.1978 decreeing the suit filed by late Shri Brij Gopal Binnani, the plaintiff-appellant for possession over the property in suit on payment of Rs. 2054.13 towards costs of constructions or such amount as the Court determines. The Civil Appeal No. 354 of 1978 filed by Smt. Rukmini Devi and Ors. the defendants against the decree was allowed by the District Judge, Azamgarh on 17.10.1979 with the findings that the defendant 1st set appellants have perfect...
Smt. Shashi Prabha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1633
ORDERA.N. Varma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as additional chief standing counsel for the opposite parties. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is order dated 16th July, 2007 whereby the administrative as well as financial powers of the petitioner who is Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat has been withdrawn and three member committee has been constituted.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') it is only the District Magistrate who is empowered to withdraw financial as well as administrative powers of an elected Pradhan. In this connection he referred to a Government order dated 30th April, 1997 which stipulates that the Governor has delegated all the powers of the State Government under Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of Panchayat Raj Act t...
Nagar Maha Palika Vs. Parasnath Ji Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1661
S.U. Khan, J.1. Inspite of sufficient service, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party at the time of hearing, hence, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicants were heard in both the revisions.2. Revisions are withdrawn/ treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24, C.P.C.3. First revision is directed against order dated 30.9.1986, passed by Civil Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 128/70 of 1983. The said case had been instituted by Parasnath Ji Trust, opposite party under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitration Act, 1940 has been repealed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, by virtue of Sections 21 and 85 of new Act, proceedings which had commenced before passing of the new Act will have to be completed in accordance with Arbitration Act, 1940 vide T. Esthal Union G.M.B.H. v. Steel Authority of India : AIR1999SC3923 and Neeraj Munjal v. Atul Grover : AIR2005SC2867 .4. The case of the opposite party before the court below was th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »