Allahabad Court November 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.
U.P. Power Corporation and anr. Vs. Bijendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC421
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, the appellants herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia in Original Suit No. 266 of 2004, Bijendra Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr., whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed and compensation to a tune of Rs. 7,00,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% has been awarded.2. By consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard on the informal papers, however, upon exchange of affidavits.3. The respondent, being plamnff, instituted a suit for damages, being Original Suit No. 266 of 2004, Bijendra Singh v. U. P. Power Corporation Limited and Anr., before the appropriate Court on 4th November, 2004 and claimed compensation to a tune of Rs. 7,00,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of his elephant due to electrocution. The case of the plainti...
Ajay Swaroop Mehrotra Vs. D.N. Raina (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC141
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and has filed the suit for a declaration, praying that the sale deed dated 10.5.91, executed by the defendant No. 1, through power of attorney holders defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is illegal and a void document. The facts, as culled out from the writ petition in brief is, that the suit was filed in the year 1991 and, all these years, the suit could not proceed as it was bogged down in a controversy as to whether the suit was maintainable or not. It has come on record that the trial court allowed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. which was set aside in the appeal, and thereafter, the matter came to the High Court where it was affirmed, and consequently, after all this exercise, the suit has now proceeded. At the present moment, the stage is set for the leading of the evidence by the parties and, in this scenario, the defendants filed a certified copy of the power of attorney executed...
Sushil Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ208All
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 Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).2. It is, inter alia, stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is owner of Shivani Restaurant, Orai situated at Gate of Konch Bus Stand, Qrai; and that Rajesh (respondent No. 4) is working in the said Restaurant since July, 2007.It is, inter alia, further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner received the said Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 from the Amin in the month of May, 2008. Copy of the said Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.3. A perusal of the said Recovery Certificate shows that the same refers to a Notice No. 5515 dated October 22, 2007 whereby the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- within 15 days as compensation on account of employment of a ...
Lipton India Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)22VST230(All)
1. Heard Sri C. S. Lodha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nandit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The question, cropped up, in this case is as to whether in the event of a situation where an industry has been granted exemption under Section 4A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act'), notice can be issued under Section 15A(1)(qq) of the Act for imposition of the penalty relying upon the provisions contained in Section 8A(2)(a) of the Act and in case it is permissible, then under what circumstances. The Lipton India Limited, which is a public limited company has got branches at Kolkata (West Bengal), Ambattur, Madras (Tamil Nadu), Dharwad in Karnataka, and Etah (U. P.). During the pendency of the writ petition, the nomenclature has been changed and now it is termed as 'Hindustan Unilever Limited', situate at Mumbai.3. The State Government in pursuance of the po...
Ram Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1439
ORDERU.K. Dhaon and V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Pande, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 9.2.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 has filed the instant writ petition.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at N.O.I.D.A. as Regional Officer/Environmental Engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. The Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the order dated 22.3.2006. A charge-sheet dated 9.6.2006 containing 12 charges was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.6.2006. The petitioner was required to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 20.11.2006 at Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.4. Learned Counsel for the petitio...
Radhey Shaym Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1666
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.88 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and dated 10.10.1989 whereby his appeal was rejected, he preferred claim petition under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide Reference No. 156/III/1990 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 28th July, 1997 hence the petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders as well as the judgment of the Tribunal.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak on 26.3.1968. By order dated 27th February, 1981, he was placed under suspension, whereafter charge-sheet was issued on 22nd June, 1981 requiring him to submit his reply. Block Development Officer Asodh...
Rohit Chauhan and ors. Vs. U.P. State Government Through Collector and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1425
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, assisted by Sri Nitin Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Mehta, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 12 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who is a mute spectator in the entire proceedings.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who applied for membership of the General Body of the institution under the scheme of administration framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The Committee of Management by its resolution dated 18.11.2006, accepted the proposal of inducting new members, namely, the petitioners, and directed the treasurer to accept the amount on or before the next meeting of the Committee of Management. It has come on record that the treasurer deposited the amount on 1.3.12.2006. The Committee of Management next met on 2.1.2007, on which date, 20 members of the Committee of Management ratified the earlier resolution of 18.11.2006 and the petitioners became members of the G...
Rohini Kumar S/O Dhaneshwar Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC147
Arun Tandon and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. Petitioner before this Court is the elected Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur. He is aggrieved by an order of the State Government dated 10.11.2008 as communicated under the orders of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 12.11.2008 whereunder in exercise of powers under Section 48 (2) Proviso of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, an order has been passed suspending the financial and administrative powers of the Chairman. The only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman had not sanctioned the salary bill of the Class IV employees appointed by the Executive Officer in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur for the purposes of filling up the back log vacancy and further an order was passed by him stopping the salary of such employees. The petitioner has also been asked to show cause as to why he may not be removed from the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur.2. The order passed by the S...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Ram Prakash Batham
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC961
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri Pankaj Rai, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A.B. Singh, who has appeared on behalf of petitioner-respondent.2. It is contended that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner-respondent challenging notice dated 10.7.2007, whereby he was informed of his date of retirement on attaining the age of 58 years though he was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. The learned standing counsel contended that his final relief included a mandamus directing the appellants to allow him to continue till he attains the age of 60 and by means of the interim order, the Hon'ble single Judge has granted the final relief, which is not permissible in law in view of various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court.3. Sri A.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent, however, contended that in view of the Government order dated 17.3.1994, all the Rules applicable to corresponding Government servant...
Uttar Pradesh Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC2066
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the award dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, labour court (I), U.P., Meerut (respondent No. 1).2. Counter - affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties..3. It appears that by the Government order dated 3.11.1993, reference of an alleged industrial dispute was made to the respondent No. 1, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993.4. The alleged dispute referred was as to whether removal/deprivation of the workman-Virendra Pal Singh (respondent No. 2) from work with effect from 30.6.1985 by the employer (petitioner) was proper and legal, and if not, as to what benefits/reliefs the concerned workman was entitled to and with what other details.5. Written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »