Allahabad Court February 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 Company Ltd. Vs. Puspa Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ747
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is made by the insurance company against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 14th August, 2007 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') on account of wrong fixation of quantum of compensation and negligence of the deceased. An application was made by the insurance company under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on the ground of collusion between owner of the vehicle and the claimant of the compensation which was rejected by the tribunal on or about 2nd July, 2007. A limited observation has been made by the tribunal which implies that since owner has already filed his objection against the claim of the claimant, the application of the insurance company can not be entertained. Therefore, on the ratio of the judgment reported in 2003 (7) S.C.C. 212 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel) followed by this Division Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 2087 of ...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through It's Deputy Manager, Divisiona ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1876
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is made by the insurance company against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 14th August, 2007 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') on account of wrong fixation of quantum of compensation and negligence of the deceased. An application was made by the insurance company under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on the ground of collusion between owner of the vehicle and the claimant of the compensation which was rejected by the tribunal on or about 2nd July, 2007. A limited observation has been made by the tribunal which implies that since owner has already filed his objection against the claim of the claimant, the application of the insurance company can not be entertained.2. Therefore, on the ratio of the judgment reported in : AIR2003SC3127 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel) followed by this Division Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 2087 of 20...
Shyam Ji Rastogi and ors. Vs. Bar Association and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2010
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 3rd December, 2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar refusing grant of ad-interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs-appellants in the Original Suit No. 1450 of 2007, Sri Shyam Ji Rastogi and Ors. v. Cawnpore Bar Association and Ors.2. According to Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, two important documents, being Annexures-9 and 10 to the affidavit, are the plinth of their claim in respect of the properties. Annexure-9 is an agreement between the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces and Chief Commissioner of Oudh and the Barristers, Pleaders and Mukhtars of the District Court (Kanpur) (previously 'Cawnpore') on the basis of resolution dated 28th July, 1891 laying down certain rules, under which buildings for accommodation of Barristers, Pleaders and Mukhtars attending the public courts may be erected on Government land, and whereas...
Cit Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(All)412
1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arises out of the order dated 25-5-2004 passed by the Tribunal, Lucknow in respect of the assessment year 1993-94.2. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 17-11-200.4. Only one substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of appeal, which is as follows:Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer completing the assessment did not have the jurisdiction over the case without appreciating that the assessee had not challenged the jurisdiction of the said assessing officer within one month of the receipt of notice under Section 143(2)/142(1) as required under Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:The respondent assessee had filed the return of income-tax under ...
Raj Jewellers Vs. Director of Income Tax (investigation) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(All)131
1. A special survey was conducted on 15th Jan., 2001 against 16 jewellers, who participated in 'Swarn Sanbandh' exhibition at Hotel Taj Residency, Lucknow during 13th Jan., 2001 to 15th Jan., 2001 in which the petitioner had also participated. The survey was converted into search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and certain jewellery and other precious items were seized from the petitioner's residential and business premises. The search and seizure operation has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.2. In the meantime, proceedings for block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act were initiated. The AO completed the assessment vide order dt. 30th Jan., 2003 and determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 68.14 lakhs. In appeal the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 91,800 on account of excess silver found. However, he granted relief aggregating Rs. 67,16,498. Both the Revenue and th...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Regional Manager Vs. Day ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1064]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Samir Sharma, Advocate on behalf of appellant and Sri H.N. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of petitioner-respondent.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 11th February, 1994 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24341 of 1988 (Daya Shanker Dubey v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Lucknow and Ors.), whereby Hon'ble Single Judge has qushed the order dated 10th July, 1988, and has allowed the writ petition.3. The facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows:Petitioner-respondent Daya Shanker Dubey, was appointed as Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as the 'UPSRTC') in 1973. In respect of an incident, which took place on 12th January, 1971, he was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. He was reinstated under an order dated 17th...
Dr. (Mrs.) Nasreen Ara Wife of Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. the University of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2045
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Shri Lihazur. R. Khan on behalf of the petitioner; Shri P.S. Baghel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri H.N. Singh for respondent No. 3, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Shri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Sthalekar on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.2. The Hamidia Girls Degree College, Allahabad is a Girls Institution established and managed by Muslim Minority. The said Degree College is an Associate College of the University of Allahabad. The petitioner Nasreen Ara was appointed as a Lecturer in the said College with the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University on 30/4/1988. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 19/1/2005, to which she submitted reply. Enquiry proceedings were held by the Officer so appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report which was forwarded to the petitioner under letter of the Manager dated 09th May, 2005 calling upon the ...
Smt. Kanti Devi W/O Shri G.P. Verma and ors. Vs. the Kanpur Developmen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1537
V.M. Sahai and Shiv Charan, JJ.1. The Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (in brief the Authority) in the year 1975 launched a scheme known as Halwa Khanda Scheme for construction of some flats for persons belonging to economically weaker sections. It was also mentioned in the scheme that the cost of flats including the land had been fixed by the Authority to Rs. 5675/- and allotment would be made by lottery. It was proposed in the scheme to construct 380 flats out of which 228 flats were to be allotted to general category, 76 flats were reserved and 76 flats were to be auctioned. It was also provided in the Scheme that subsidy of Rs. 1000/- would be provided by the Authority towards each house/land which would be recovered by it from auction of commercial plots. The petitioners who were poor persons and belonged to economically weaker sections of society applied for allotment of one flat each under the aforesaid Halwa Khanda Scheme. Some of the petitioners had applied for allotment i...
Lalloo Ram Vs. D.D.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1618
ORDERDevi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard the parties counsel. With the consent of parties counsel, I proceed to decide the petition finally at the admission stage.2. Short question raised in this writ petition is that while allowing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has indicated in his judgment that he has made spot inspection and thereafter, the finding of fact has been recorded in the judgment and order dated 29.12.2004. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither made any spot inspection nor visited the spot. There is nothing on record to show that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made spot inspection to find out the factual position. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded wrong finding that he has made spot inspection.3. Sri N.C. Upadhyay learned Counsel submits that though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made spot inspection but he admits that there is nothing on record to...
Shamboo Nath Tripathi Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Indust ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR401]; (2008)IIILLJ416All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against award dated July 31, 1989 given by Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 277/1985. The following matter was referred to the Tribunal:Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in stopping two annual increments of Sri S.N. Tripathi, Head Cashier, Union Bank of India, Koelsa Branch, permanent (sic.) having effect of postponing of future increments for two years is fair, just and legal, if not, to what relief workman concerned is entitled3. Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on February 18, 1981 containing the allegations that on April 18 and April 19,1980 at about 10 a.m. he refused to accept the cash from Bank's customers in spite of being advised by Branch Manager to accept the cash and further that on April 19, 1980, after refusing to accept the cash from the customers, he directed the customers to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »