Allahabad Court December 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.
Kapil Dhawan Vs. Chhotey Lal Gaya Prasad Trust and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC831
Shishir Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the compromise decree dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure-9 to writ petition) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar.2. The factual background of present case is that there is a Public Charitable Trust known as Committee Sadavart Va Dharmshala Chhotey Lal Gaya Prasad. The Trust is meant for providing free education to the helpless, poor peoples, free medical services by opening hospitals and also providing helps to all needy peoples from the income of trust property owned by trust. The trust is owner of property Bearing Bunglow No. 84, Cantonment, Kanpur. The father of defendant-respondent No. 2 was tenant and after his death, respondent No. 2 succeeded the tenancy, which was alleged to have been terminated on 29.7.1999 when the notice of terminating the tenancy was served. The defendant-respondent No. 2 did not vacate the premises and occupied the same and used Bunglow No. 84 wrongfully ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rehana Begham and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1089
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.1. The facts in brief are that an accident took place on 23.3.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. while Israr Khan, Additional District Government counsel was going on his motor cycle No. 8849 to his residence. The driver of truck No. D.L.-1-G.B./0895 dashed the motor cycle from behind. Due to the injuries received in the accident Israr Khan died on the same day. The claimants filed M.A.C.P. No. 105 of 2004 claiming compensation. The claim petition had been allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its award dated 1.9.2008 awarding Rs. 6,23,612 compensation with 6% interest. The award dated 1.9.2008 has been challenged in this appeal.2. We have heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has urged that it was not a case of accident but it was a planned murder by use of the truck, therefore, the claimants were not entitled for compensation. He further urged that the Tribunal could not have directed the insurance company to pay the amount ...
Smt. Prem Wati and anr. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi Alias Minakshi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1099
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2008. passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, District Mathura arising from Original Suit No. 174 of 2006 in between Munni Devi and Anr. v. Smt. Premwati and Anr. vide judgment and order dated 13.8.2008, appellant's Appeal No. 176 of 2008 has been dismissed as barred by time.2. The stamp reporter has reported that second appeal is not maintainable against the said judgment.3. I have heard Sri R.K. Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellants.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted before this Court that the report given by the stamp report is wrong and the second appeal is maintainable for the simple reason that dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation after disposal of an application for condonation of delay is in substance and effect a confirmation of a decree appealed against, therefore, the second appeal ...
Raj Karan Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1105
Amitava Lala and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions have come up assailing the vires of the amended Rule 10 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, a copy of the Notification containing the said Rules dated 22nd June, 2004 is on record of the leading writ petition as Annexure-1. To appreciate the controversy, the existing rule and the substituted rule are reproduced below:3. Amendment of Rule 10. In the said rules, for Rule 10 set out in Column I below, the rule as set out in the Column II below, shall be substituted, namely: Column I Column IIExisting rule Rule as hereby substituted________________________________________________________________________1O. Maximum area for which a 10. Maximum area for whichmining lease may be granted: a mining lease may be granted:No person shall acquire in No person shall acquire inrespect of any minor mineral one respect of any minor mineral,or more mining leases covering a except sand or morrum or bqjritota...
Lal Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2321
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.9.2002 of the Joint Secretary, U. P. Government, Lucknow and consequential order dated 29.5.2003 of the Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad whereby he has been denied revised pension as a result of his notional promotion on higher posts from back date in higher pay scales.3. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are as under.4. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the Excise Department of State of U. P. on 26.10.1971 and confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1975. In the Excise Department, Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk were posted in the subordinate offices as well as in the Headquarters. The respondents were maintaining distinction in respect to pay scale and status of the said clerks posted in subordinate offices qua those posted in Head Office though they were discharging s...
Oxford Academy for Career Development Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(All)606
Satish Chandra, J.1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dt. 9th March, 2004, passed by the CIT under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, where he has cancelled the registration granted earlier on 1st April, 1999, for being a charitable institution.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860, bearing registration No. 290 of 1995. The petitioner, hereinafter known as the assessee, has applied for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act being a charitable institution. The opposite parties have granted registration on 1st April, 1999. Further, the exemption was also granted under Section 80G of the IT Act on 10th May, 1999.4. A survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act on 20th Sept....
Smt. Pholpati Devi Vs. Smt. Asha Jaisawal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1799
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri M.M. Sahai for the appellant, Sri Sanjeev Singh for respondent No. 1 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.4.2004 passed by Hon'ble single Judge by which it has allowed the writ petition for petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 1') observing that at the time when recruitment in question was made, the statute did not provide any reservation in promotion for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 4 treating the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes was illegal.3. Sri Sahai vehemently contended that reservation in promotion in the educational institutions was provided by Government order dated 12.7.1978 and the same has not been superseded by any subsequent statutory provision. Hence, it was rightly provided by the Management and the Hon'ble single Judge has erred in ...
Chief Managing Director, B.S.N.L. and ors. Vs. Masan Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ443All
Syed Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. All these three intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 16, 2007 of Hon'ble single Judge allowing the writ petitions of petitioner-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioners') quashing the orders impugned in the writ petition whereby the respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants') have cancelled the orders of regularisation of petitioners and reverted them to their original position of full time sweeper/casual labour and also directing for recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioners.2. The appellants it appears formulated a scheme for conversion of part time casual, labours into full time casual labours w.e.f. August 25, 2000 and thereafter on January 23, 2006 took a further decision that all those part time casual labours who have been converted into a full time casual labours be considered for regularisation against group 'D' vacancies. Appropriate direction in this ...
Vijendra Pal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1243
Janardan Sahai and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.1. The petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge, Rampur. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner in which it was alleged that the petitioner granted bail in a case under Sections 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code against all Judicial norms and propriety and for extraneous consideration, knowing that the accused Chhotey Mian alias Zaki Mian was named in the prompt first information report of a broad day light double murder case and he was also named as assailant in the dying declaration of Achhan Khan, one of the deceased of this incident and thus the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 29.1.2002 denying the charges. In the enquiry proceedings that followed the statement of Faisular Rahman, the complainant was recorded in support of the case of the department. The charged officer also examined three defence witnesses, namely. D.W. 1 Satish Chandra A.D.G.C....
Ram Chandra Dixit Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ509All
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of Hon'ble single Judge dated October 15, 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant being Writ Petition No. 43719/2008 has been dismissed.2. Facts relevant for deciding the present special appeal are:The present appellant claims to have been employed as casual labour in Railways. His engagement as such was put to an end on July 9, 1987. Such disengagement is stated to have been effected in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant made an application for re-engagement before the Management after 12 years, i.e., in the year 1999, which was not considered. He thereafter made an application for conciliation under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The conciliation between the appellant and the employer failed. The Conciliation Officer forwarded the papers to the Central Government for appropriate reference if any...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »