Allahabad Court March 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.
Bindeshwari Prasad Pandey Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR691]; (2008)IIILLJ38All
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner was a driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation). An incident took place on February 6, 1980, He did not stop the bus when he was asked to do so by the checking authorities. He was given charge-sheet on March 10, 1980. He was removed on September 20, 1980. He filed an appeal. It was dismissed on May 14, 1981. The petitioner filed an application before the State Public Services Tribunal (the Tribunal). This has been dismissed on April 10, 1995. Hence, the present writ petition.2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samir Sharma counsel for the respondents.3. The inquiry officer had recorded the finding that the petitioner did not stop the bus when he was asked to stop and there could be collusion between him and conductor for carrying passengers without tickets. This finding was upheld by the disciplinary authority and the Tribunal.4. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alle...
District Administrative Committee and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR916]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri A.R. Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent workman.The leading petition No. 36355 of 2007 is against an award dated 29.3.2007 rendered by the labour Court and the connected petition is against an order dated 24.1.2008 passed for execution of the aforesaid award. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are being disposed of and the necessary facts of the leading petition are being considered.2. The respondent workman was appointed a Cadre Secretary and the Chief Executive of the Co-operative Society in 1976. He was placed under suspension on 11.3.1992 whereafter a charge-sheet leveling several charges, including for financial misdemeanour was served on him on 23.3.1993 and after holding a domestic enquiry, the District Administrative Committee, after examining the record, the report of the enquiry officer etc., passed a resolution on...
Baij Nath Ram Son of Rupa (Dead) (Kedar Prasad Son of Late Baij Nath a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2078
Poonam Srivastav. J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, and Sri Purshottam Upadhyay, learned Counsels for the appellants and Smt. Swati Agrawal Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. Second appeal No. 229 of 2007 arises out of original suit No. 96 of 1987-Baij Nath and Ors. v. Sonmati and Anr. which was dismissed on 1.10.1991 by the Additional Munsif Mohammadabad, Ghazipur. Civil appeal No. 242 of 1991-Baij Nath Ram and Ors. v. Sonmati and Anr. was preferred against the aforesaid judgment.3. Second appeal No. 230 of 2007 arises out of Civil Suit No. 88 of 1987-Ramesh Bhar and Sonmati v. Baij Nath and Ram Chandar which was decreed, against which regular appeal was filed vide Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1991-(sic) Nath Bhar v. Ramesh Bhar and Ors. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 12.9.2006. Common evidence was led in both the cases as such both the second appeals are being decided together.4. Record was summoned before the appeals were admitted, an interim order was gran...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Nabbu Ram (D.) by L.Rs. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1821
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. The instant second appeal was filed beyond time. After the delay was condoned, record was summoned and it was stipulated between the respective counsels that the matter will be decided finally at the stage of admission itself since the appeal was filed on 4.9.1984 and 23 years was spent for effecting service of the application for condonation of delay. The lower court record is available.2. On 13.3.2008, after hearing the counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Gupta and Sri Mayank Agrawal and the counsel for respondent Sri A. K., Trivedi, following substantial question of law was formulated which arises in the instant second appeal:Whether there was any evidence documentary or otherwise, to establish that there was a contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant?3. On the request of counsel for the respondents, the appeal was adjourned for the next day and 14.3.2008 was fixed for arguments. On 14.3.2008, when the appeal came up for arguments, once again a ...
Gulab Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR650]
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. Heard Mohd. Isa Khan, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.The petitioners are Police Constables in Civil Police, U.P. By the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexures4 to the petition) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Jhansi respondents 5, the petitioners have been directed to join in Armed Police.2. According to Regulation 525 of the UP. Police Regulations, only those police Constable who have put in more than 2 years of service and not more man 10 years of service are liable to be transferred from civil police to Armed Police and vice versa and the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have completed 10 years of service, therefore, their transfer is in violation of aforesaid Regulation.3. The Apex Court in a recent judgment Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. 2008 (2) ADJ 484 (SC), has held that the U.P. Police Regulations are statutory in character as they have been framed ...
Anil Kumar S/O Lakhmi Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1832; [2008(119)FLR812]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. An application for recall of the Judgment and order 27-11-07 has been filed by the applicant, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hapur on various grounds and particularly that the applicant was a necessary party though not Impleaded in the said writ petition. The Court could not have been directed the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'Act 1894') in view of the fact that possession of the land has already been taken. Symbolic possession is sufficient and there is no requirement of actual and physical possession of the land be transferred. The application has been heard today. This Court vide Judgment and order dated 27-11-07 has asked the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 48 of the Act, 1894 in the light of the judgements of Supreme Court particularly in Union of India and Anr. v. Bal Ram Singh an...
Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai Son of Late Sri Ramayan Rai Vs. the Income Tax App ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(All)607; [2008]302ITR148(All)
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Since, both the matters involve similar questions of law and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Heard Sri R.N. Singh. Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K. Rai, and Sri Madhur Prasad. Advocate for the appellants and Sri R.K. Upadhyay for the respondents.2. I.T.A. No. 14 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'first case') has been filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in Income Tax Appeal No. 17 (Alld) of 2007. I.T.A. No. 476 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'second case') is against the order dated 13.4.2007 of the Tribunal passed in several connected appeals of the appellants.3. The first submission of Sri Singh the learned Counsel for the appellant in the first case is that the appeal filed before Tribunal was barred by time. This obje...
Shyam Lal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2008All174
ORDERKrishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Atul Dayal appearing for opposite party.2. The short question which arises for determination in this case is whether provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act are applicable and delay can be condoned in making application to record adjustment or satisfaction of decree under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'Code').3. Facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under:Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the Judge, Small Causes Court for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed vide ex-parte judgment and order dated 30-3-1990. Application filed by the tenant-application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was also dismissed on 24-4-1991. The said order was put to challenge by the tenant-applicant by filing Civil Revision No. 381 of 1991 before this Court which was dismissed on 10-4-2007. However, this Court allowed six months time to the tenant-appl...
Cox India Limited Through Its Director, Sri Rajeev Kumar S/O Sri Satis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ARC39
Sushil Harkauli and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of U.P. Excise (Liquor Transit) Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. The facts are that the petitioner being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 runs a distillery manufacturing country liquor and foreign liquor. The distillery is located in Naugaon in the district Chhatarpur (Madhya Pradesh). The petitioner while transporting whisky manufactured by it from its distillery at Naugaon to Gwalior experienced difficulty, in as much as, whisky had to pass through the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the consignment was on unbroken transit by the route Naugaon-Mauranipur-Jhansi-Dabra-Gwalior. The reason for the difficulty, according to the petitioner, was that the Rules contemplate issue of a transit pass known as 'permit' only if liquor is being transported from one State, through the territory of Uttar Pradesh, to another ...
Satendra Son of Dharam Pal, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC28
Ajai Kumar Singh, J.1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 313 of 2006 (Smt. Sharda v. Satendra and Ors.) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, district Ghaziabad and for setting aside the order dated 20.9.2006 summoning the applicants to face the trial under the abovementioned offences. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 Sri Rajeev Chaddha and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the proceedings relate to matrimonial dispute between the applicants and opposite party No. 2 and now both the parties have arrived at a compromise and as a result of the compromise, opposite party No. 2 has resumed living with her husband, applicant No. 1. The parties filed compromise before...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »