Allahabad Court April 2008 Judgments
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Manish Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2195
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated 5th April, 2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Mathura dismissing the application of the appellant filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). It has been held by the court below that Section 9 of the Act does not contemplate any proceeding challenging the award of the arbitrator passed, if any, in the arbitral proceeding. An award can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.2. Mr. K.M. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that as because the award of arbitration is outcome of a nullity, it can be challenged in any collateral proceeding. Hence, it can also be challenged in the application under Section 9 of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing in support of the respondent, contended that some amount of money by cheque/s has/have been received by the appellant on the basis of such award, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST438(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. This trade tax revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') has been filed by M/s. Shiva Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated June 10, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Ghaziabad, whereby it allowed the second appeal filed by the Department and restored the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 22 of the Act.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89. The original assessment order for the relevant assessment year was passed on April 29,1991. The dealer had declared total taxable turnover as Rs. 1,15,68,248.50. The total tax liability determined in the original assessment order was Rs. 6,92,632.80. With regard to the inter-State sales made by the dealer without form 'C' prior to September 30,1988 tax at the rate of 12 per cent was charged. Whereas with regard to the Central sales mad...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Through Its Senior Manager (Administration) Vs. Control ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR330]; (2008)IIILLJ842All
Prakash Krishna, J.1. All the above five writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly agreed that common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The writ petition No. 11523 of 2004 was considered by them as a leading case and the arguments were advanced with respect to the facts of this writ petition.2. The Bank of Baroda, a nationalized bank, is engaged in the business of banking and is a lead bank in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Shri Bhola Prasad, the respondent No. 3, herein was the erstwhile employee of the Banaras State Bank Limited. Under a scheme of amalgamation, the Central Government Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs provided amalgamation of Banaras State Bank Limited with the Bank of Baroda. The said scheme provides that the Banaras State Bank Limited shall be amalgamated w.e.f. 20th of July, 2002, the date specified in the official gazette under the amalgam...
Tag this Judgment!Deena Nath and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2676
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.2.2008. passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia holding the revision filed by the respondents against the order dated 27.9.2007 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as maintainable.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issue raised in the writ petition are ; an objection under Section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the respondent No. 2 praying that plot No. 603/1 area 40 Are be kept out of consolidation after condoning the delay in filing the objection. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 18.1.2005 condoning the delay in filing the objection directing plot No. 603/1 area 40 Are be kept out of consolidation. Against the order passed by the Consolidation O...
Tag this Judgment!Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2200; AIR2008All144(FB)
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. In all the aforesaid writ petitions the controversy is common and the order of the Additional Collector passed in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 1950 Act), is under challenge on the ground that he has no jurisdiction or authority under Section 198(4) of the Act to exercise the power of Collector and thus, the order of cancellation of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners being without jurisdiction, is to be set aside. During the course of argument the Hon'ble single Judge having been confronted with two different views of the Benches of coordinate jurisdiction, in the case of Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and Ors. 1995 ACJ 1313 : 1996 RD 190; and in the case of Brij Kishore and Ors. v. Atrikta Ziladhikari and Ors. 1986 ALJ 1248, referred the following questions vide order dated 21.12.2001 to a larger Bench:(1) Whether under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the power...
Tag this Judgment!Zunaid Ahmad Son of Late Abdul Aziz Vs. the State of U.P. Through the ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3616
Janardan Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. In these three Writ Petitions identical controversy is involved and as such all these Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in these cases and the counsel for the parties are agreed that the Petitions may be disposed of finally.2. The petitioners are mining lease holders of Sand on the Yamuna River bed in portions of District-Kaushambi. They were granted mining leases in the year 2006 which are operative for a period of three years i.e. till 2009. There is a condition in the lease deed that they will not conduct mining operations by use of machines except with the permission of the District Magistrate. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not obtained any permission from the District Magistrate. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stoppage of mining operations on the basis of oral orders of the District Magistrate. Other contentions have...
Tag this Judgment!Brajesh Kumar Son of Sri Raghubir Singh Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Alias Been ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2417
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This First appeal under Rule 49 of U.P. Kshetra Panchyat (Election of Pramukhs and UP-Pramukhs and Settlement of Elections Dispute) Rules 1994 has been filed by the winning candidate whose election has been set aside by the impugned judgment and order passed by District Judge, Hathras in Election Petition No. 2 of 2006 Smt. Meena Devi v. Brajesh Kumar. The Dispute relates to the election of Block pramukh, Kshetra Panchyat Sahpau District Hathras. Total 54 voters cast their votes. According to the final result declared, Brajesh Kumar obtained 27 votes, Smt. Meena Devi obtained 26 votes and one vote was declared invalid. The election petition was filed mainly on the allegation that after completion of counting both the parties were declared to have obtained equal number of votes i.e. 27 each and Assistant Returning Officer (A.R.O.) who was B.S.A. (Basic Shiksha Adhikari) indicated that result would be declared on the basis of lottery...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suleman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2717
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.1.2008, passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad taking the plea that the amount of compensation awarded for a sum of Rs. 1,57,000 on account of death of deceased aged about 8 years is grossly excessive. In favour of such submission he cited a Judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. 2007 (4) TAC 385 : 2007 (4) AWC 3556 (SC), to show us that in case of death of minor Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 51,500, therefore, this Judgment having binding effect on this Court, the Court should award such amount of compensation.2. We are of the view that we are governed by our own judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Padam Singh and Ors. 2007 (4) TAC 388 (All) : 2008 (1) AWC 193, in which all the earlier judgments have been considered. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken a point that the ratio of Syed Ibrahim (supra) has not ...
Tag this Judgment!Qutbun Nisha Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3233
ORDERV.D. Chaturvedi, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 6-2-2008 whereby Km. Sabira (name changed), the victim of Case Crime No. 20 of 2008 was left free to go to the place of her own choice. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The Magistrate, on the basis of the medical evidence, found her above the age of 18 years.2. When a girl is in the clutches of an accused of an offence under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C. there is always a probability that the accused had offered any inducement, threat or promise to her to keep her with him. When such girls are recovered, the probability is there, that she is still under the influence of such inducement, threat or promise. Therefore, it is not proper at all to record the statement of such victim unless such influence is vanished. It may ordinarily, take 15 days to two months, depending upon the age of the victim and the period during which she ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited and ors. Vs. Prem Sagar Jaiswa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3523
A.N. Varma, J.1. The present revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2008, whereby the application preferred by the revisionists for rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. has been rejected. The circumstances in which the controversy arises in the revision is as follows.2. The opposite party instituted a suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2004) for ejectment of the revisionist from the premises in question on the ground of arrears of rent. The revisionists, i.e., the tenants filed their written statement on 3.12.2004 raising an objection in para 5 whereby it was averred that the suit was barred as 60 days clear notice was not given to the revisionists as contemplated under Section 80 of the C.P.C. They thereafter preferred an application under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint for want of proper notice under Section 80, C.P.C. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 rejected the said application and n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »