Allahabad Court July 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.
Suresh Chandra and anr. Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Distri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4203
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlords-respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Sanaullah and Nasrullah filed suit for eviction against their tenant Hards Lohia, who died during pendency .of the suit and was substituted by petitioners and proforma respondent Nos. 5 to 7. In the suit, relief for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was sought. Initially suit was filed on. the regular side in the year 1970, however in the year 1972 Jurisdiction for trial of suits for eviction by landlord against tenant was conferred upon J.S.C.C., hence suit was tried by J.S.C.C./Munsif Kounch, district Jalaun, where it was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 49 of 1973, Sanaullah and Anr. v. Hardas Lohia.3. It was stated in the plaint that rent with effect from 1st January, 1970 had not been paid. Landlord sent notice on 1.9.1970 terminating tenancy and demanding the rent. It was stated that initially tenant was in occupation of bigger portion as tenant howe...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Assistant Manager Vs. Smt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC189
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company challenging the judgement and order dated 05th April, 2008 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar.2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, number of the vehicle was not taken at the time of filing the first information report in the night at 3.15 A.M. after the accident occurred at about 2.00 A.M. It is a case of hit and run. However, we find that subsequently the vehicle was identified and in the charge-sheet number of the vehicle was given. Five witnesses were examined in the criminal case. The eye witness was examined before the tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the appeal on such point particularly when there is no rebuttal on this issue en the part of the insurance company before the tribunal itself.3. So far as the question of applicability of multiplier is concerned, the only point has be...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR982]; (2009)IILLJ247All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The short question before the Court is whether the State Employees Insurance Corporation is liable to refund the amount in respect of the employees of the workshop U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.3. The Corporation has framed its service regulation known as U.P. State Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulation, 1981 which has come into force w.e.f. 19.6.1981. The Employees State Insurance Act 1948 is applicable to the workshops of the Corporation which come within the definition of Factory as defined by Section 2(12) of ESI Act. The Corporation has been divided into three wings -(a) Operational wing (which relates to plying of Corporation buses) (b) Administrative wing and (c) Workshops (for maintenance and repair of Corporation buses). The employees who are working in all the three wings are transferable from o...
Mahima Glass Craft Industries Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST534(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy, the present revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by a dealer carrying on the business of manufacturing of glass wares. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1994-95. The rejection of the account books is not disputed in the present revision.2. Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that there is no material in the possession of the Department not to accept the disclosed turnover of coal dust. The applicant-dealer disclosed the sale of coal to the tune of Rs. 26,08,007. The assessing authority in its assessment order has found that no attempt was made by the applicant-dealer to conceal turnover of coal. However, in view of the facts as found in the enquiry report dated April 29, 1995, the assessing officer estimated the suppressed turnover of coal dust at Rs. 6,51,993. In second appeal the said order has been confirmed. The only contention, as noted a...
State of U.P. Through Its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Vs. Ram Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR492]
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri G.C. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for appellants-respondents in these two appeals and Sri Ramanuj Pandey, learned Counsel for Ram Pratap Shukla and Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for Sita Ram.2. These two special appeals raise similar question of facts and law, hence both are being decided by this common judgement.3. Special Appeal No. 1338 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th March, 2006, whereby the writ petition No. 43128 of 2003 filed by respondent, Ram Pratap Shukla has been allowed.4. Brief facts necessary for deciding the case of Ram Pratap Shukla are that he was appointed on 20th December, 1976 as helper in the work-charged Department of Irrigation Department of U.P. His services were regularised in the year 1993. He continued to work as regular employee and retired on 31st July, 2002.5. A clai...
Kalideen Vs. Nathu Ram Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4195
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Landlord-respondent after purchasing the property in dispute in 2005 instituted a suit for eviction against tenant-petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2006. Property in dispute is a shop, the rent of which is Rs. 150 per month. Ground of eviction mentioned in the plaint was default in payment of rent and material alteration. In respect of default, the trial court held that as on the first date of hearing of the suit, i.e., 29.3.2006, tenant had deposited Rs. 7,000, which included entire rent alongwith interest and cost of the suit, hence he was entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.3. In respect of material alteration, the tjfal court held that defendant-tenant had lowered the level of the land in front of the shop in dispute and replaced the door with iron shutter and these changes were covered by Section 20(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly,...
Shyam Ji Shukla S/O P.K. Shukla Vs. State of U.P. Through Its District ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC727
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Shri Rajesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner Shyamji Shukla and Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned Counsel for allottee, Raj Kumar Awasthi, respondent No. 2 in the first writ petition and respondent No. 4 in the second writ petition.Initially accommodation in dispute was in occupancy of Anil Kumar Gupta. Vacancy was declared by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. & E.O.) on 30.11.2005. Petitioner claims that he is tenant of the accommodation in dispute since 20.7.2005. Smt. Kamla Devi and Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma, landlords respondent No. 2 and 3 in the second writ petition support the case of the petitioner. Proceedings were initiated on the application of Raj Kumar Awasthi before R.C. & E.O. Petitioner claims that accommodation in dispute was let out to him by the landlords on 20.07.2005 at the rent of Rs. 2200/- per month. Rent Control and Eviction Officer through impugned order dated 8.6.2007 allotted the accommodation in dispute to R.K. Awas...
State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, P.W.D., U.P. Government Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR262]; (2009)IILLJ59All
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri U.N. Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Rai Advocate on behalf of the Bridge Corporation, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. and Sri Ravindra Kumar Advocate on behalf of the employees.2. These special appeals have been filed by the State of U.P. as pf as by the U.P. State Bridge Corporation, established by the State of U.P. against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered in a bunch of 154 writ petitions. All the appeals have been clubbed and are being decided by this judgment. The relevant facts for the decision of these appeals are:3. U.P. Bridge Corporation has been constituted by the State of U.P. basically for carrying on the construction work of Bridges etc. It is not in dispute that the power to create posts both Class-IV and above in the U.P. Bridge Corporation vest with the State Government. The aforesaid 154 writ petitions were filed by the persons, who were engaged by the Bridge Corporation...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC204; [2008(118)FLR1171]; (2009)ILLJ565All
Amitava Lala, J.1. All the appeals are analogously heard because a common question is involved herein. The common question is whether insurance company is liable to pay interest and/or penalty to the claimants even in absence of contract between the employer and insurance company or not. According to us, it is obviously a substantial question of law which requires consideration at the threshold.First proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as Act, 1923) categorically says that no appeal shall lie against any order unless any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, no appeal can be said to be maintainable as a matter of course unlike the other law or laws available in this field.2. Very often we come across the appeals from such type of orders passed by the respective Commissioners under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as the Commissioner) under which the insurance companies are f...
Anwarul Hasan, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4174
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Sri Dharam Pal Singh, advocate has appeared on behalf of the review applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') and has advanced his submissions on behalf of the applicant. He has been heard at length. Sri A. B. Saran has appeared for the opposite party-appellant.2. This appeal was decided by this Court by a detailed judgment dated 23.3.2006 whereby it was allowed to the extent the Hon'ble single Judge while dismissing the contempt application of the respondent in this appeal has directed that the appellants shall not be permitted to raise the question of limitation in filing of execution application, if any, before the concerned court and thereby depriving them of their right of raising objection with respect to limitation, if any, in execution proceedings.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that since this appeal was numbered as 429 of 2007 (defective) therefore, without removing the said defect, the same could not have be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »