Allahabad Court May 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.
Raj Kumar Yadav Son of Banwari Yadav Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR555]
B.S. Chauhan and R.D. Khare, JJ.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was merely a temporary employee and has no right to hold the post. The learned Single Judge further held that even if a person is appointed on probation and unless an order in writing is passed for confirmation and he is continuing beyond the period of probation provided under the rules, he would not be deemed to have been confirmed automatically, merely because the probation period is over.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Constable in Provincial Arms Constabulary (hereinafter called the 'P.A.C.') on temporary basis. No order of confirmation had ever been passed. The services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated after working for about seven years on the ground that his s...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amar Autos and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2186
Amitava Lala, J.1. Both the appeals are arising out of the order/s passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra dated 24th January, 2008 in Original Suit No. 225 of 2007 and 23 of 2007, by which the suits have been dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the 'C.P.C.') upon accepting the objection/s on the part of the respondents. Out of aforesaid two orders, impugned in the present appeals, only difference is in one of such orders it has been held that the argument of the plaintiff therein has no force to say that the case is not covered under the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. However, both the appeals are taken together for analogous hearing on informal papers, to which neither of the parties have any objection.2. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, contended that two suits have been filed by the appellant while one suit has been file...
Smt. Naseem Begum Alias Naseem Akthar Vs. Smt. Shaista and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3467; II(2008)DMC669
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The contention of the appellant before this Court challenging the order dated 8.4.2008, passed in the application for grant of succession certificate by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bareilly, is that after divorcing the first wife, respondent No. 1 herein, the appellant married the person, who now deceased. In-spite of the same, not only a sum of Rs. 82,404 has been granted in favour of the first wife-respondent No. 1 but she is holding about Rs. 3,00,000 as nominee of the deceased, as per service record.2. The appellant further contended that a suit has already been filed by her for the purpose of declaration that the appellant is legally married wife of the deceased.3. According to us, the appellant has proceeded wrongly with the case herein. Under the order impugned, a sum of Rs. 3,89,772 was prayed but rejecting such claim on the basis of objection of the respondents, i.e., first wife and the others, a sum of Rs. 82,404 has been granted to them on such limite...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3375
Amitava Lala, J.1. The awarded amount of compensation in this case is Rs. 1,74,500 as per the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2008, passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah.2. By preferring this appeal, the appellant Insurance company has stated before this Court that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the award was given in favour of the brother of the deceased which cannot be given according to the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in the cases of Mrs. Hafizunbegum v. Md. Ikram Heque and Ors. 2007 (4) TAC 1 : 2007 (4) AWC 3366 (SC). He said that brother cannot be said to be dependant, therefore, entitlement of the dependant is to be considered while assessing the quantum applying the multiplier system. In other words multiplier is a measure. From the said judgment we find that the Court held that in terms of Section 140 of the Act entitlement of a person does not cease because of absence of dep...
Smt. Sua Lali Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR594]
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner, requesting therein that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued by quashing order dated 25.4.2007 passed by District Programme Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri and the consequential order dated 14.5.2007 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Behjam, Kheri.Brief background of the case, as disclosed in writ petition, is that applications were invited by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari on 18.1.2006 for making selection and appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri. The last date for submission of application form war. 31.1.2006. Petitioner along with one another incumbent, namely, Ms. Sunita Kumar had applied for consideration of her claim for the post in question for Gram Panchayat Kari Pokhar, Block Behjam Kheri. Along with the application, petitioner had appended her High School certificate, caste certificate, domicile certificate and the extract of family register. There were only two candidates in fray. As far as...
Ram Swaroop Son of Bhupal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3798
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. By these writ petitions the similar issues have been raised, hence, they are being disposed by this Common order. First two writ petitions were heard on 11.3.2008 and other three writ petitions were heard on 15.4.2008.2. Sri Arun Srivastava has appeared for the petitioners in ail the writ petitions. Sri V.K. Singh appeared for Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel appeared for the State respondents.3. In writ petition No. 61871 of 2007 prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer directing the expunction of the name of petitioners from class III (Aasami lease holder) and their ejectment. The petitioner filed revision against the said order which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 17.10.2007.4. In writ petition No. 9232 of 2008 prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer directing the expunction of name of petitioners as Aasami lease holder and their eject...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Regional Manager Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1761
Amitava Lala, J.1. By consent of the parties the appeal is heard on informal papers in the place and instead of formal paper book/s.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company from the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi giving an award of Rs. 1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in a road accident.3. The fact remains that when the deceased was going by a scooter it was hit by a bus from behind. The bus was running rashly and negligently. The bus was insured under the appellant-insurance company. The deceased was about 52 years old at the time of his death. He was unmarried. He was earning Rs. 400/- per month from agriculture. The claim petition was made under Sections 163-A as well as 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') by the claimants, i.e. the brothers of the deceased, claimed compensation for a s...
Ram Adhar Singh and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2673
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri J. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the revisions filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 were allowed.3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are ; the petitioners as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 belong to same family. The petitioners and contesting respondents are co-tenure holders of plots No. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 45. In chak carvation proceedings, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 who were father and son were allotted chak No. 891 and 1191. The respondent No. 3 was allotted chak No. 890 and respondent No. 4 was allotted chak at plot No. 1170. The respondent No. 3 Rajnath was allotted three chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer one at plot No. 418, second at plots No. 1519/1 and third at plot Nos. ...
Ram Dev Son of Sri Mangal and Nepal Son of NaraIn Vs. the State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3705
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.In view of the order, which is being passed in the writ petition no notices have been issued to respondents No. 4 and 5.Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector holding that application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed by respondent No. 4 is maintainable and the date was fixed for hearing the parties on merits. Against the order dated 30th April, 2007 a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the order dated 29th February, 2008.In Writ Petition No. 14110 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the second w...
Smt. Kamlesh Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1061]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard lea mod Counsel for the parties.The relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to the respondent to disburse the: monetary terminal benefits, including pension, between the petitioners and respondent No. 9 in the ratio of 50 percent each.2. The son of the petitioners late sepoy Shailandra Kumar Singh after being recruited in the Indian Army in the 14th Rajpoot Regiment was posted in a insurgency area of District Koopwara in the State of Jammu and Kashmir where he died in action on 29.1.2001. He left behind his parents and his issue less widow, respondent No. 9 together with a younger unmarried brother and sister aged about 19 and 21 years respectively The mother of the late sepoy received a telegram from the Regiment to send three passport size photographs along with the negative for the purposes of processing payment of death benefits. In pursuance thereof, they sent the require documents. However, on the basis of a Will executed by the late sepoy where th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »