Allahabad Court November 2008 Judgments
Akhtar HusaIn S/O Mohd. Islam Vs. S.D.M.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR4]
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by Administrative Officer, Tehsil Saidpur, district Ghazipur, respondent No. 2, by which a sum of Rs. 18,485/- is sought to be recovered.The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that that the father of the petitioner, Mohd. Islam was Lekhpal, who died in harness on 22.12.1978. Thereafter, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner was given appointment on the post of Lekhpal on 22.01.1979 as per the letter issued by Parganadhikari, Saidpur, district Ghazipur, anneuxre-1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has been given charge of Lekhpal on 27.01.1979.2. Thereafter, on 20.08.1979 the petitioner was sent to Lekhpal Training Centre, Varanasi. After completing the training of Lekhpal when the petitioner returned back to Tehsil Saidpur, he moved an application to the respondent No. 1 on 01.07.1980 for providing him the charge. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1165
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Himmat Arora died in an accident said to have been caused by Maruti Van No. U.P. 25-K-7081 which was insured by the petitioner's company. He was husband of respondent No. 2 Smt. Namita Arora aged about 43 years, father of Ms. Shweta Arora aged about 22 years and son Manish Arora aged about 20 years. The petitioner is United India Insurance Ltd. filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act for granting permission to contest the claim petition on the ground that owner of the vehicle was not contesting the claim petition properly.3. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide order dated 22.8.2008.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that they have full right to file application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim. He has urged on two point...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1683
ORDERVijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether the prospective accused can challenge the order directing investigation of the case after registration of the FIR', is the main question that falls for consideration in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. p. C.') by means of which, the order dated 12-11-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad on application No. 293/XII of 2008 (Smt. Baby v. Abdul Aziz and Ors.) has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the application moved by Smt. Baby (Opposite party No. 2) under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. has been allowed and S.O. P.S. Kareli (Allahabad) has been directed to investigate the case after lodging the F.I.R. on the basis of that application.3. Heard Sri Shahbuddin, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.4. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA about maintainability of the application under S...
Tag this Judgment!Ordnance Factory Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Prescribed Aut ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ409All
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the proceedings in P.W. Case No. 41 of 2008.It appears that the respondent Nos. 2 to 16 filed an Application under Sections 15(2) and Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The said application was registered as P.W. Case No. 41 of 2008. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.In reply to the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 16, Objections have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Copy of the said Objections has been filed as Annexure S.A. 1 to the Supplementary Affidavit.2. The aforesaid P.W. Case No. 41 of 2008 is pending before the respondent No. 1. It is submitted by Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners that as the respondent Nos. 2 to 16 claim themselves to be the employees of the Ordnance Factory Co-operative Society Limited which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Agnihotri Vs. Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1096
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1.2. It appears that the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by him while working in the establishment/factory of the petitioner. The said application was registered as W.C. Case No. 96 of 2003.3. After the exchange of affidavits between the parties in the said case and the leading of evidence by both the parties, the respondent No. 1 by the judgment and order dated 6.12.2007 awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,72,994.82 to the respondent No. 2. The said amount was to be deposited within 30 days through a bank draft failing which the petitioner was made liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of incident till the date of paym...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Aslam Vs. Rampur Development Authority Through Secretary and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC566
ORDERArun Tandon and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. Petitioner before this Court had made an application for sanction of the site plan qua construction over the plot situate at Nai Basti Jumma Colony, Degree College Road, Rampur. The site plan so submitted by the petitioner is stated to have been granted/approved by the Rampur Development Authority vide letter dated 15th May, 2008 bearing Site Plan No. 284/RDA/07-08. The petitioner is stated to have deposited the requisite fee also. The petitioner was, however, served with a notice by the Prabhari Adhikari Waqf/District Magistrate, Rampur dated 21st October, 2008 stating therein that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of kabristan and has raised unauthorized construction over the land of the kabristan. The petitioner was required to appear before the District Magistrate/Prabhari Adhikari of the waqf, failing which it was provided that appropriate proceedings shall be taken ex parte.2. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a reply to th...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Compotar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1111
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In brief the Act, 1988) has been filed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 16.1.2007.2. The brief facts are that an accident took place on 24.12.2000 at 5.30 p.m. with Bus No. UP-80/E-9852 which hit Moped on which the claimant and his friend were travelling. Due to injuries suffered in the accident the right hand of the claimant was amputated and the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation alongwith 12% interest for the permanent disability suffered by him. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. It further held that insurer of Moped was not necessary party. After considering ...
Tag this Judgment!Mehendra Singh Vs. Haqimuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1271
ORDERPankaj Mithal, J.1. Heard Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.2. The plaintiff-appellant had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,000. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance and so is the appeal by the lower appellate court. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this second appeal.3. The valuation of the suit as well as this second appeal is Rs. 25,000. Section 102, C.P.C. as amended w.e.f. 1.7.2007 provides that no second appeal would lie in petty matters in which valuation of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 25,000. Section 102, C.P.C. as it stand today is reproduced hereinbelow:102. No second appeal in certain cases.-'No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.4. Admittedly, the subject-matter of the original suit from which the appeal arises is not more than Rs. 25,000. The second appeal against such order...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Devi (Gram Pradhan) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC525
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Uttam Kumar Goswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. K. Khanna, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Amit Saxena, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. The Court has also perused the original records produced by the standing counsel.2. The present dispute relates to the renewal of the fishery right of a pond granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 4. The facts as culled out from the record produced by the State Authorities is, that the plaintiff-respondent No. 4 was granted a patta for fishery rights in the pond in question for a period of 10 years on 23.6.1996. A formal agreement dated 4.4.1997 was executed. It transpires that the plaintiff applied for the renewal of the fishery rights on 27.3.2006. A report was submitted by the revenue authority on the same date and, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate renewed the lease on the same date, i.e., on 27.3.2006. When correct...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Bhatnagar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1268
Vineet Saran, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2004-05, the respondent-University, which is governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, invited applications for grant of admission to 'Integrated B. Tech. and M. Tech. (Biotechnology)' course of five and a half years duration. This course was besides several other courses for which admission was to be granted. The other courses were four years duration. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no such course of B. Tech. (Biotechnology) or M. Tech. (Biotechnology). The course for which the admission had been granted to the petitioner was course code GC-7, which was of 'Integrated B. Tech. and M. Tech. (Biotechnology)' course. Now, what has ensued is that after four years [i.e., after 8th Semester) the respondent-University is not continuing the course and after granting them B. Tech. (Biotechnology) degree, the petitioner and other such students have been told that further three semesters would not be c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »