Allahabad Court June 2008 Judgments
State of U.P. Through the Collector and Adhishasi Abhiyanta, National ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3408(All)
S.U. Khan, J.1. This First Appeal From Order was earlier allowed on 13.11.1991 by Hon'ble Om Prakash, J. (as His Lordship then was) since retired, without hearing any one on behalf of plaintiff-respondent as no one had appeared on his behalf. Thereafter re-hearing application was filed which was allowed by me on 21.5.2008.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal. This First Appeal From Order is directed against order dated 19.7.1982 passed by Civil Judge, Ghazipur in O.S. No. 6 of 1982 Durga Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Through the said order application of defendant-appellant for making a reference of the dispute to the arbitrator as provided by Clause 16 of the agreement was rejected. The court below rejected the contention of the plaintiff that the dispute was not covered by Clause-16 of the agreement. However, dispute was refused to be referred to the Arbitrator on two very strange grounds. The first ground was that specified arbitrator was Superinte...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Janki Devi Widow of Late Sri Jokhai Vs. Nagar Nigam Through Its M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3613; [2008(119)FLR5]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. The learned Counsel for the respondents is not present.2. It transpires that the petitioner's husband was appointed as a 'DOM' on 4.12.1987 to work in the electric crematorium managed by the respondents in Daragranj at Allahabad. It is alleged that llie petitioner's husband worked continuously on that post at ihat crematorium and died in harness on 13.9.2000.3. Upon the death of the husband, the petitioner applied for an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Mukhya Nagar, Adhikari issued a letter dated 18.10.2000 recommending the appointment of the petitioner to work as a 'DOM'. It is alleged that based on the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioner was appointed and started working w.e.f 22.12.2001. No formal appointment letter was issued but was paid the salary through cheques and that her name finds place in the muster roll of the employees of the Nagar Nigam...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Son of Shri Ganpat Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Fi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR800]; (2008)IIILLJ847All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Dave, counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel representing respondent No. 1 & 2. Since Court at the outset is not satisfied for the reasons given hereinafter and is dismissing the writ petition, notices need not be issued to respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged as daily wager under Assistant Engineer, IInd Sub Division. Irrigation Division, Lalitpur; that he had worked for more than 240 days in each of the calender year from the year 1980 to 1985 and that his services were illegally and wrongly terminated by an oral order with effect from 26.5.1999 and was not allowed to discharge his duties.3. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged illegal termination before Deputy Labour Commissioner. Jhansi. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 1 5.2002 to the Presiding Officer, Labour court, U.P., ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Through the Senior Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3379(All)
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of arguments in this appeal no one appeared for the respondents even though case was taken up in the revised list accordingly, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant were heard.2. This appeal is directed against judgment award and order dated 31.5.1990 given by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IXth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Motor Accident Case No. 81 of 1986 Smt. Kalawati Devi and Ors. v. Jaishree Singh and Ors. One Amar Nath died in a motor accident. His widow Kalawati Devi and others (respondents) filed the claim petition giving rise to this appeal claiming compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The tribunal below awarded the compensation of Rs. 93,600/-. Half of the awarded compensation was directed to be paid by owner/insurer of the vehicle bearing No. URS 9650 and the other half by owner/insurer of the vehicle bearing No. RNB 331. 12% interest was also awarded. The deceased was travelling in mini bus bearing No. URS 9650. It collide...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Nath Chaudhri Vs. Town Area Committee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3544
S.U. Khan, J.1. In this case, Judgment was reserved on 18.4.2008 by following order:List revised. No one appears on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4.Judgment reserved.2. This is plaintiffs appeal. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.Defendants respondents are as follows:1. Town Area Committee, Baragaon.2. Bakshi Town Area Committee.3. Sudha Sagar.4. Smt. Janki Bai.3. The suit (O.S. No. 207 of 1984) was dismissed on 28.3.1989 by IVth Additional Munsif, Jhansl. However the learned trial court recorded the finding of ownership and possession in favour of the plaintiff. (The contention of town area was that the land in dispute was part of road/patri). The suit was dismissed only on the ground that plaintiff could not construct boundary wall upon the land in dispute wit...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Mewa Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3406
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is defendant's first appeal and is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.9.1978 given by IIIrd A.D.J., Jalaun at Oral in O.S. No. 79 of 1976, Sri Mewa Lal v. State of U.P.3. The plaintiff respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 24.809 alongwith pendente lite and future interest. The suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 10,226.50. The said amount was directed to be paid within two months, failing which 6% interest from the date of order (decree) was directed to be paid.4. The plaintiff was given contract for constructing quarters for the residence of Judicial Officers in Orai. The work was to be completed by 25.1.1972. Under issue No. 1, the court below after thorough examination of the entire evidence on record held in Para 14 of its judgment that plaintiff had failed to establish that he completed the work by 25.1.1972 and that on the other hand, it was proved that he could complete the work on 30.6.1972.5. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!irshad Ali (Since Deceased) by L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Viresh Agarwal and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3468
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Waris, counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Ajit, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondents.2. These two appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Rampur, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992 arising out of Original Suit No. 114 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1991 arising out of Original Suit No. 60 of 1980 allowing Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992.3. Facts giving rise to the dispute are that Radhey Raman Agarwal, predecessor in interest of the respondent Viresh Agarwal and others instituted an Original Suit No. 114 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur, which stood transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Rampur, claiming relief for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the land in dispute, which was depicted at the foot of the plaint and also relief of permanent injunction restraining the defe...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.S. Zainul Abdeen and Co. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST212(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the matter was heard and is being disposed of finally.2. Raising a short controversy, the present revision has been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The facts are not much in dispute. The case of the applicant is that he has despatched cotton lungis from Delhi to unregistered dealers, namely, Mahabir Hand Loom, Alankar Lungi Center and Crescent Lungi Company, Manuath Bhanjan, District Azamgarh, U.P. through G.R. No. 8765154, GR No. 8765240 and G.R. No. 8765239, all dated January 12, 2008 of a total of four bales of cotton lungis. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sahayata Kendra, Ghaziabad, issued a notice under Section 50 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter called as, 'the Act') when the goods reached Mohan Nagar Check-post, Ghaziabad, to show cause as to why the goods sought to be imported in the State of U.P. should not be treated as 'other textiles' taxable a...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Pal Alias Chachchu and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4677
ORDERR.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 92/05 State v. Chandrapal and Ors. pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Hamirpur, District Hamirpur under Sections 147, 307, 427, 506 I.P.C.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. at the stage of admission and since the point involved in this case is legal one, I am deciding it with the consent of the parties at the admission stage without calling for any counter affidavit.3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the complainant Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused applicant in the Court of C.J.M., Hamirpur on 12-6-01 with these allegations that the complainant resides at Kajauli. His grand father Baijnath was doing agricultural work in his field at Kajauli and the complainant and his uncle Swatantra Bahadur looked after that work. The complainant's mother and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ142
Vinod Prasad, J.1. The two petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Bibhav Kumar are the charge sheeted accused of case crime number 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007), under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, police station Sector 20, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar vide Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition. C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar has taken cognizance of the offence on 5-7-2007 and registered Case No. 5859 of 2007, State v. Rajeev Kumar and Ors. and have summoned the accused persons vide his order dated 5-7-2007 fixing 5-8-2007 for their appearance. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner with the prayer to issue writ order or direction in nature of oertiorari quashing of all proceedings emanating from FIR of Crime No. 55 of 2007 (Case No. 5859 of 2007) for the aforesaid offences vide Annexure No. '9 to this writ petition. The ancillary prayer is to direct respondent authorities to compensate the petitioners for loss of their life and' personal liberty on account of their illegal detention on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »