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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Manju and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC897
Devi Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra, JJ.1. Devi Prasad Singh and Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ.-Heard Mr. Mukund Dubey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents.2. Present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short, Act, against the impugned award dated 1.5.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Court No. 32, Barabanki in Motor Accident Claim No. 320 of 2005.3. Controversy involved in the present appeal relates to an accident taken place on 23.12.2003 from Motorcycle No. U.P.-41C-4645 at Deva-Barabanki Road near village Palta. The claimant Smt. Manju while approaching the Tribunal advanced her claim with the allegation that the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of accident taken place, Shri Anoop Singh (deceased) succumbed to the injuries on 4.1.2004. The factum of accident was infor...
Rotomac Globals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: [2010]320ITR616(All)
1. Heard Sri S.K. Garg, senior advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the different orders of the Tribunal dated 22-7-2008 and 21-1-2008 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03.3.The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of writing instruments under the brand name of Rotomac and located at Kanpur. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the affairs of the appellant company hereinafter known as assessee were being managed by the board of directors as per the Companies Act. Being a whole-time director, he is operating from his residence as a matter of necessity. The payment was made to the director pertaining to the telephone, electricity, and traveling expenses etc., as per the details given in the assessment orders, apart from the above monthly remuneration. He fur...
Sheo Dayal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3487
Alok K. Singh, J. 1. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgement and order dated 31.08.2006, passed by Sri Alok Saxena, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Hardoi convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him with life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- & in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for one year and also convicting under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years' and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- & in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant Ghassu @ Ghan Shyam, son of Nanhey, resident of Kherwa, hamlet of Gauri Dayampur, Police Station-Kasimpur, District-Hardoi on 30.09.2004 at 4.30 at P.S. Kasimpur, District Hardoi, saying that on 29.09.2004, his 16 years old daughter Km...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shambhu Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(239)ELT427(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order No. 1792-93/04-NB (S) dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/85-186/04-NB (S).2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan for the appellant and Sri Anand Mohan for respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the Preventive Officer of the Customs on the basis of specific information, on 24.12.1999, have intercepted a Maruti Gypsy No. UGE-9446 on Lucknow-Barabanki Highway near Safedabad Railway Crossing. There were three persons in the Gypsy. One Raj Kumar Sharma was driving the Gypsy, while two other occupants namely Shambhu Nath and Lal Bahadur, the respondents, were sitting in the vehicle. Both were residents of district Mathura. On enquiry, both respondents have admitted that they were having silver of foreign origin in the vehicle and told that they were travelling from Gorakhpur to Mat...
Smt. Saroj Mishra and ors. Vs. Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC519
ORDERShishir Kumar, J.1. I have heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri A. Section Diwakar, learned Counsel for respondents.2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 30.9.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad and order dated 17.7.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 6/Prescribed Authority, Allahabad in P. A. Case No. 15 of 2000.3. Respondents being landlords filed an application for release of House No. 95, Mahabiran Lane, Allahabad in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The application was allowed by prescribed authority vide its order dated 17.7.2001. Petitioners aggrieved by aforesaid order, filed an appeal. Appeal too has been dismissed. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, petitioners have filed present writ petition.4. One of the main ground raised by petitioners before this Court is regarding non-consideration of mandatory provision of Rule 16 (d) of the Rules wh...
Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC521; [2008(119)FLR935]
ORDERAshok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam for the appellants and Sri K. R. Sirohi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondents.2. The appellant No. 1 before this Court is an unaided institution said to be recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The institution had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 53277 of 2008 challenging the notification issued in exercise of powers under Section 1(5) of E.S.I. Act, 1948 dated 30th June, 2008 whereby educational institutions have been brought within the purview of the E.S.I. Act, 1948.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants had contended before the Hon'ble single Judge that word 'establishment' has not been defined under the E.S.I. Act. Educational Institutions cannot be treated to be an establishment within the meaning of Section 1(5) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 inasmuch as the words 'other establishments' as used in the said Section would necessarily take it's colour f...
Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director (Administration/Marketing), ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1123
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this group of writ petition is, whether Sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (iii) of Section 17 of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) is attracted in the instant case or not? The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions is, that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company and has a factory at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacture of paper. The raw material required for the manufacture of paper is wood which is purchased by the petitioner from various deposits of the U.P. Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.F.C.) through various allotment orders. These depots, according to the petitioner, are located in the 'reserved area' as notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is contended that in the reserved area, only such activities can be carried out which are permitted...
Paras Nath Pandey Vs. Director, North Central Zone
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1777
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.11.2000 of Hon'ble single Judge dismissing petitioner-appellant's (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') Writ Petition No. 24972 of 1991 this intra Court appeal under the rules of the Court has been preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 5.8.1991 whereby the Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre, Nyay Marg, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to the 'N.C.Z.C.C.') has terminated petitioner's services giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 11/16.9.1987 as Stenographer (Hindi) attached to Deputy Director (Admin.) on consolidated pay of Rs. 1,581 per month including all allowances. The aforesaid appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without prior notice. On 30.7.1991 the Director, N.C.Z.C.C. published an advertisement in daily Hindi newspa...
Ram Saran Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1790
ORDERNarayan Shukla, J.1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Mridul-Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naved M. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet No. 203/2008 dated 7th of May, 2008, whereby the petitioner has been charged under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow as well as the order dated 12-5-2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 3935 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2002, under Section 498-A/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hazratganj. district Lucknow.3. On coming to know about the registration of a case against him, the petitioner approached this Court through writ petition No. 2600 (MB) of 2002. This Court by means of order dated 15th of May, 2002, passed an interim order to the effect ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›