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.
Manoj Kumar Sahu Son of Chhote Lal Sahu Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR733]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Government dated 18.6.2002 declining to refer the dispute to an Industrial Court for adjudication of the validity and legality of the termination outer passed in the year 1994. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central Government had declined to refer the dispute on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly and that no reasonable explanation was given. The learned Counsel submitted that no period of limitation is prescribed under the Industnal Dispute Act for referring a dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, and therefore, the Central Government committed an error in declining to refer the dispute on the ground of delay.3. No doubt the words 'may at any time' used in Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act indicates that there is no stipulated period and that an industrial dispute could be referred at any time. These w...
Smt. Swaroop Kumari Bakshi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC578
ORDERU.K. Dhaon and Bala Krishna Narayana, JJ.1. Heard Sri Alok Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow by which the request of the petitioner to consolidate Misc. Case No. 4 of 2003 along with Misc. Case No. 6 of 1983 was refused.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Reference Petition No. 6 of 1983 filed by the petitioner is against the award dated 31.3.1975 and reference Petition No. 4 of 2003 preferred by Raj Kumar Bakshi is also against the award dated 31.3.1975 with respect to the same land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reference under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act is also pending before the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal in which the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation is involved.4. The learned standing counsel subm...
S. Jafar Raza Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1029]
Sunil Ambwani and Raj Mani Chauhan, JJ. 1. Heard Shri Narendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Ratan appears for the respondent-bank.2. Shri S. Jafar Raza, the petitioner joined services of the bank as clerk on 6.3.1961. He was transferred to various places and last worked at main branch of Allahabad as an officer. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on medical grounds after completing 29 years with benefit of employment of his son in the bank. The bank allowed him to retire peremptorily on 31.1.1990 with an offer of employment to his son.3. the bank after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with previous sanction of the Central Government framed regulations called 'Union Bank of India (Employees)Pension. Regulations, 1995 giving option to the employees, who have retired from service between 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993, for a pension scheme, after surrendering the employers contribution in the provident fund to the bank. The petitioner exercised t...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Laxmi Alias Laksho Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4007; [2008(119)FLR830]
ORDERJanardan Sahai and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. The special appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing her appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The father of the respondent was a Government servant. He died in harness on 25.12.93. The respondent made an application for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. Her application was rejected by the appellant on the ground that it was moved beyond the period of five years and also on the ground that at the time of her father's death she was married though she was divorced later on.2. The order rejecting her claim was challenged by the respondent in writ petition. The learned single Judge by his impugned order dated 20.3.2001 has allowed the writ petition. It has been held by the learned single Judge that there is no difference between the widowed daughter and divorced daughte...
Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Ram Dhani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4122
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri S.K. Mehrotra advocate for the defendant-respondents.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent Injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interfering in the rights of plaintiff in use of the land as passage as well as for removal of charan, nad etc., which was kept by the defendants-respondents on the disputed land. The case of the plaintiff is that the disputed land i.e. Plot No. 1254 was purchased in the year 1983 and thereafter a house was constructed in the year 1985. The disputed land was only passage for egress and ingress to the plaintiffs house. It was also pleaded that the defendants have started collecting building material, i.e., sand, bricks etc. with an intention to make construction and completely stop the passage which will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff. The land which was appurtenant to the defen...
Shiv Saran Lal Gupta and anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Kiran Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4182
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and order passed by the concerned civil court, Shahjahanpur dated 28th May, 2007, by which the application of the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been rejected and accordingly the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter in short called as 'C.P.C.') has also been rejected holding it to be barred by time.The point for adjudication before' us is about maintainability of the appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for both the contesting parties have arrived at a consensus that the appeal will be heard on informal papers, which was accordingly done at the stage of admission.2. Mr. U.C. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended before this Court that the appeal is maintainable from such order since the same was composite one. In support of his contention, he relied upon paragraph 20 of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Essar Constructions v. N.P...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorized Officer Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC197
Amitava Lala, J.1. The fact remains that when the deceased was carrying buffalo by the concerned truck being TATA 407 U.P. 13B 6388 he was murdered by a co-passenger and dead body was thrown from the vehicle. The deceased was aged about 32 years and carrying cattle business. X- An important question arose before the tribunal that when the deceased was murdered on the vehicle, whether such incident can be said to be motor accident for the purpose of getting compensation from the insurance company or not.3. We have extensively gone through the judgment and order passed by the tribunal. The tribunal discussed this issue under issue No. 1 therein and held that the vehicle was used at the time of murder and under issue No. 3 ultimately came to a conclusion that since after such incident, the driver did not inform the local Police Station, therefore, it can be presumed that the driver had knowledge about the causing of murder from before. Even thereafter the insurance company was directed to...
Shree Balkishan Agrawal Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: (2010)27VST290(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy, the present revision has been filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities below including the Tribunal asking the dealer-applicant to pay the differential amount of tax due to wrong issuance of form under Section 3B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. The dealer-applicant is a recognition certificate holder and it purchased refined furnace oil (R.F.O.) from Indian Oil Corporation. Although the dealer was entitled for concessional rate of tax in respect of purchase of R.F.O., it is not in dispute that it issued the form claiming total exemption from payment of tax. It is also not in dispute that the dealer-applicant purchased R.F.O. without paying any tax on such transactions. A notice under Section 3B of the Act was issued by the Department on the ground that up to the month of October 1991 it purchased R.F.O. to the tune of Rs. 18,75,851.69 by issuing such form IIIB claiming total exemption. In reply to the show-cause notice...
State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary of Revenue, Vs. Krishna Murar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR209]
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-appellants and Sri Ram Mohan, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. With the consent of the parties, this special appeal is being disposed of at this stage without calling for any counter affidavit specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today.3. This is an intra court appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the impugned notice dated 17th April, 2003 has been quashed holding that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service and to receive salary treating his date of birth as 31stMay, 1995, it has also been provided that he would be entitled to his retiral benefits on that basis. State of U.P., not being satisfied by the direction so issued, has filed this appeal.4. The brief facts necessary for deciding the special appeal are that the writ petitioner...
Sudhir Kumar JaIn S/O Late Shri Chand JaIn Vs. State of U.P. Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3402(All)
Vineet Saran and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. Heard Sri Chelan Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Arjun Singhal appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner was allotted C type plot No. 686 by the respondents-Saharanpur Development Authority vide order dated 5.5.2006. The said allotment was initially made in favour of petitioner after the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities. As per the terms of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit a total sum of Rs. 93,500/- for the said plot. The said amount was to be deposited in twelve easy quarterly installments, pa>able by 30.9.2008. The petitioner paid six installments but there was some default of payment of four installments. The installments so fixed were ranging around 6,000/- to 7000/-, to be paid quarterly. On such...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »