Allahabad Court June 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.
Ali MakIn Naqvi Vs. U.P. Shiya Central Board of Wakf and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3602
1. The dispute in all the writ petitions arises from one and the same transaction of registration of Masjid & Azakhana /Imambara situate in Mohalla Bagla, Amorha, District Jyotibaphule Nagar as wakf before the U.P. Shiya Central Board of Wakf Lucknow, therefore, all the three writ petitions are taken up together.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 28001 of 2007 (Ali Makin Naqvi v. U.P. Shiya Central Board of Waqf and Ors.:The petitioner in the present case applied for registration of Masjid and Azakhana/Imambara as Wakf before respondent No. 1 i.e., U.P. Shiya Central Board of Wakf Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as Board) on 01.02.2003. The respondent No. 3 i.e., Wali Haider filed an objection on 16.02.2004 stating therein that the Imambara and Masjid were constructed by Sri Daad Ali his ancestor and the same is being maintained and managed by his family members. In his submissions the Imambara and Masjid mentioned in different Wakf are already registered and there is no question o...
Hydro Electric Employees Union Through Its Representative Murari Lal S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1173]; (2009)ILLJ573All
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2008, hereby the Presiding Officer, Rampur has rejected application of the petitioners regarding the authority of Sri Harsh Kumar Gupta to represent respondent No. 1 (employer) in various adjudication cases pending thereat, this writ petition has been filed contending that though the petitioners have not given any consent for representation of the respondent No. 1 through a legal practitioner, yet in utter violation of provisions of Section 6-1(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as '1947 Act') read with Rule-40 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules. 1957 (hereinafter referred to as '1957 Rules') the respondent No. 2 has illegally rejected their objection. It is contended that unless there is a clear consent given by the parties before the Tribunal, other party cannot be represented through a legal practitioner and in support of the above submission reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›