Allahabad Court January 2008 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.
Rajeshji Verma S/O Late Prem Mohan Verma and Smt. Prem Lata Verma Wife ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2568; 2008(2)AWC1307
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed against the award dated 10.1.2006 delivered by Sri Ratan Lai Dhar, then Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. Conn No. 17, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. 775 of 2000, Smt. Seema Verma and Ors. v. Abhineet Kesarwani and Ors. Since Doth the appeals have arisen out of the same Judgment, we have heard them together and now we decide them by?. common judgement.2. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that the appellants of both these appeals filed the aforesaid M.A.C.P. In the Court of District Judge, Allahabad with these allegations that Dr. Rajan Verma who was son of petitioners No. 5 and 6 (appellants in F.A.F.O. No. 845/06 and husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 (appellants in F.A.F.O. No. 1574/06) was an Eye Specialist & renowned Surgeon of India. He was doing his private practice, and was earning Rs. 23,000/- per month. He was an income tax payer and had paid income tax of Rs. 51,...
Sanjai Kumar Alias Mallu Vs. Manoj Kumar Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1282; LC2008(3)57
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant Sanjal Kumar alias Mallu against the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by Shri P.N. Tripathi, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda in Original Suit No. 215 of 2007, by which the ad-interim injunction application 6Ga2 moved by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed and the appellant has been restrained from manufacturing and selling 'Deshi Gutkha' in the packing similarly to the packing of the plaintiff.2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Shri Pankaj Shukla, for the respondents.3. It appears from the contents of the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent is dealing in Deshi Gutkha from 1999 in the name and style of 'Sahu Bharat Deshi Gutkha' in District Banda. The Gutkha is sold in the plastic packets. Originally the trade name of the industry of the plaintiff was M/s. Sahu Industries, later on it became 'Prayag Indust...
Agra Development Authority Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR217]
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.All these writ petitions arise out of the award dated 13.2.2007 given by the Labour Court, published on the notice board on 9.7.2007.All the petitioners were employed as Class-IV employees as daily wagers as Mali, Electrician and Chowkidar in Agra Development Authority. Agra, The services of all these petitioners were terminated on 1.7.1993. They raised industrial disputes which were heard and decided by the Labour Court Agra by the impugned award.2. In all these cases, the respondents workmen were appointed on daily wages without following any procedure for selection. The posts were not advertised nor any rules were followed. It was alleged that they had completed 240 days of work in a year, and that their services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workmen alleged that they were not given any show cause notice, charge-sheet nor any enquiry was h...
Upendra Kumar, B.K.O. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)25VST70(All)
Sushil Harkauli and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.1. The assessment orders of the petitioner were set-aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on part of the Assessing Authority. The assessment years involved and the date on which the respective assessment order was set-aside on the above ground has been given below:1965-66 6.6.1975 {Annexure 2}1966-67 6.6.1975 {Annexure 2}1967-68 6.6.1975 {Annexure 2}1970-71 31.8.1990 {Annexure 4}1971-72 23.10.1982 {Annexure 5}1973-74 19.2.1983 {Annexure 7}1974-75 19.2.1983 {Annexure 7}2. On 14.1.1993 and 20.2.1993, notices for fresh assessment under Section 21(4-A) of the UP. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act for short), were issued to the petitioner in respect of each of the aforesaid assessment years. These notices have been filed cumulatively as Annexure 1 to this writ petition.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged these notices and the consequent proceedings.The ground for challenge is that Sub-section (4-...
Smt. Poonam Yadav Vs. Director Health Service Deptt. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2303
ORDERBharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has applied for the post of upcharika in the department of respondent No. 2. The last date for submission of the application was 10.12.2007. According to the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner was to send the application by registered post.3. As the petitioner under some apprehension that the application will not reach by registered post within the time, he sent it by speed post vide receipt dated 6.12.2007. In fact the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the advertisement.4. It is well aware that Speed Post (E.M.S.) service is value added post services enunciated by the Indian Post and Telegraph Department, for which sender has to pay charges equivalent to the registered letter/parcel together with speed charges depending upon the distance of the place, where the post is being despatched.5. In the instant case, the petitioner has sent...
Mrigendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2294
Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. The petitioner, Mrigendra Singh, while posted as Additional Superintendent of Police (Communal Intelligence) has been dismissed from service vide order dated 13th June, 2007, passed by the State Government without holding any enquiry under the provisions of Article 311(2) second proviso Clauses (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and proviso (ii) and (lii) of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, without affording any opportunity of hearing.2. The petitioner is a 1985 batch Officer of Provincial Police Service Department of State of U.P., who Joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the month of November, 1987. After discharging his duties in various capacity at various placis he was at present functioning as Additional Superintendent of Police (Communal Intelligence) Headquarters, Lucknow. His service career has remained unblemished and at no point of time even any explanation has been called for from h...
Aligarh Development Authority and ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR271]
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.1. Sri Bal Kishan Garg was a Junior Engineer (Technical) in the Alignrh Development Authority, tie was given a charge-sheet on 18th October, 1988 levelling three charges against the contesting respondent. He filed his reply on 20th December, 1988. The Enquiry Officer found that charge Nos. 1 and 3 to be proved and 2 to be partly proved. The enquiry report was submitted on 20th February, 1989.2. The contesting respondent sent a letter dated 7th April, 1989 to the Vice-Chairman, Aligarh Development Authority admitting his guilt and requesting that sympathetic view be taken. The vice-Chairman passed an order on 15th April, 1989 accepting the enquiry report but considering the letter given by the contesting respondent passed the following order:(a) Three annual increments be stopped.(b) Censure entry be made in his character roll.(c) The contesting respondent will not be entitled to get any salary during-, the period of suspension.3. The contesting re...
Abhay Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1133
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents who has produced the original paper book of the petitioner before the Court.2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated on charge of being in possession of printed copying material which might have been used for cheating. The petitioner was appearing in the subject of Ancient History B.A. IIIrd examination as a regular candidate on 21.4.2007. He is alleged to have been caught by Flying Squad with four reproduced photostat pages from his pocket said to be pertaining to IIIrd paper of the subject of Ancient History. Notice dated 24.4.2007 was issued to him on charge of 'caught by Flying Squad with four reproduced Photostat pages from his pocket.'3. On issuance of notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.4.2007 that when he appeared in the examination on 20.4.2007 the Flying Squad had abused him and when no...
Chandra Bhan Singh and ors. Vs. Vijai Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1563
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal was earlier allowed by this Court (by Hon'ble O.P. Jain, J., since retired) on 22.5.1997. Thereafter, review was filed, which was dismissed on 4.9.1998 by the same Hon'ble Judge. Thereafter, matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of Civil Appeals No. 7373 and 7374 of 2000. On 12.4.2007, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that substantial questions of law had not been framed before hearing and allowing the second appeal and the matter was remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal after framing substantial questions of law.3. After remand from the Supreme Court, three substantial questions of law were framed in this appeal on 18.7.2007, which are quoted below:1. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of registered 'Will', the power-of-attorney as well as sale deed in absence of legal heirs of...
The Chief Engineer (irrigation Division) and the Executive Engineer, I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR417]
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants were heard.2. This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against order dated 15.04.1985 given by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and Conciliation Officer, Allahabad in W.C. Case No. 02 of 1984, Rama Devi v. the Chief Engineer.3. Late Kamlesh Prasad Gupta son of Rama Devi-respondent was a clerk in irrigation department. He was shot dead by some unidentified person. The respondent filed claim petition before Workman Compensation Commissioner for payment of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation due to death of her son. Appellants admitted that late Sri Kamlesh Prasad Gupta died while he was on duty. The Commissioner awarded the damages of Rs. 24,000/- along with Rs. 2760/- as interest and Rs. 12,000/- as penalty.4. Learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued only one point in this appeal. The argumen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »