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.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Senior Divisional Manager, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC202
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company from the judgment and order dated 31st August, 1988 passed by concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Agra. The contention of the appellant is that although the awarded amount is Rs. 2,15,000/- but the insurance company has a limited liability in accordance with law i.e. the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Both, the insurance company and the claimants, are present before this Court but in spite of service of notice the owner is not present.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents before this Court that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 110 of the old Act which is parallel to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). In other words, no permission has been granted to the insurance company to contest the claim, therefore, t...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Administrative Officer Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC191
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is arising out of a judgment and order passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, dated 20.2.2008 in M.A.C. No. 152 of 2000. Two persons died and one injured when the Tractor was hit by a Train on the way. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance Company here as well as in the court below that the Tractor is meant for agricultural purpose but when it was carrying some household material like cement and sands etc. for the construction of the house, it has been proceeded in contravention of the insurance Policy for which either the owner has to pay the compensation or the insurance Company will pay with the right of recovery of the same from the owner. The claimants are represented by Sri Nigamendra Shukla, the learned Counsel present before the court. The insurance Company further contended that although right of recovery has been given thereunder but the same is restricted only with regard to the ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Ma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ316; 2009(1)AWC188
Amitava Lala, J.1. Let the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant be kept with the record.2. This is an appeal of the insurance company challenging the judgement and order dated 23rd February, 2008 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company is that UP. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter in short called as the 'Corporation'), which was using the vehicle, is to be fastened with the liability but not the insurance company.3. He has relied upon two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (1) T.A.C. 42 (S.C.) (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and Ors.), which has also been considered in 2008 (1) ACCD 143 (SC) (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Ors.). Relying upon paragraph-16 of the particular judgement of Kailash Nath Kothari (supra) he contended that in view of the interpretation of the Supreme C...
Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi S/O Late Shambhu Ratan Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ139
M.K. Mittal, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 1145 of 2005 has been filed by Smt Manorama for setting aside the order dated 18.1.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc Case No. 33 of 2002 whereby he rejected the application filed by Smt Manorama under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by order dated 12.4.1994 @ Rs. 200/- per month and earlier enhanced to Rs. 300/- by order dated 26.7.1996 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 3228 of 2007 has been filed by Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur in Misc Case No. 35 of 2006 whereby he rejected the application filed by husband Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi against Smt Manorama under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for cancelling the order dated 26.7.1996 whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per month under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Since these two revisions ari...
Ram Awadh Tiwari S/O Sheo Nath Tiwari Vs. Sudarshan Tiwari S/O Ram Nar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC310
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri Veer Singh learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.P. Srivastava on behalf of the respondent.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1.3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that the respondent No. 1 took an agriculture loan of Rs. 59,000/- from the Chandauli Branch of Union Bank of India. The loan was repayable in 17 equal half yearly installments. The respondent No. 1, who was writ petitioner, committed default in depositing the installments, due to which recovery proceedings were initiated at the instance of the bank for recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. A citation to appear was issued on 25th November, 1995. In pursuance of the citation to appear, writ-petitioner was arrested and after deposited Rs. 30,000/- he was released. Writ-petitioner thereafter represented ...
Krishna Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR711(2)]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the year 1997 and is working in that capacity since then. The petitioner applied for regularisation of his services which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that there is a ban imposed by the State Government on fresh appointment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition.2. In my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Presuming that the State Government had imposed a ban, the said ban can only be operative for fresh appointment and cannot come in the way for regularisation of the services of an existing employee.3. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the authority again to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to the regularisation of the services within six weeks from the date of the production of a certifi...
Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR711(1)]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. In view of the office report dated 30.11.2007 service on the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is deemed to be served. Inspite of a stop order standing Counsel has not filed any counter affidavit. He also pleads his inability to assust the Court since his file has not been sent from his office.2. Since no counter affidavit has been filed the averments made in the writ petition will be treated as correct. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2006 whereby his claim for regularization from the date when his juniors were regularized, i.e., from 8.4.2002 has been rejected by the authority on the ground that he has not worked the stipulated number of days. A supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein the petitioner has annexed an inquiry report dated 15.4.2008 which indicates that the petitioner has worked for 1760 days.3. In view of the short ground the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Obeetee (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN582(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was admitted, vide order dated 22-1-2001, on the following questions of law which were framed in the memo of appeal:1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act was maintainable, is legally justified?2. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee is entitled to get the benefit under Section 80HHC?2. It may be mentioned here that the appeal under Section 260A of the Act lies on substantial question of law and not on question of law. This Court had not stated that the two questions are substantial questions of law even though the appeal was admitted on those questions of law.3. At the time of hearing, Sri S.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the re...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Jhunjhunwala Refineries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST516(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly agreed that the identical controversy is involved in these revisions relating to the applicability of Section 15A(1)(r) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The facts are not much in dispute. The dealer-opposite party carries on the business of refined oil, acid oil, etc. It imported coal from outside the State of U.P. against form XXXI. The said coal was used by it for job-work in refining the oil for the purpose of generating the steam to run the machines. The authorities below took the view that the dealer-opposite party has used form XXXI in contravention of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the coal imported through form XXXI was not utilized in the business which was carried out by the dealer-opposite party. The Tribunal by the order under revision has set aside ...
Phool Chand Tewari Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3398
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard Sri D.S.M. Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri H.S.N. Tripathi for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 5.1.1988 passed by the respondent No. 1 and to quash the order dated 25.3.1986 and the order dated 24.9.1985 passed by the respondent No. 2. A second prayer has been made for the grant of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to dismiss the application of the respondent No. 3 and to restore the order dated 14.3.1983 passed by the Munsif City, Jaunpur in Suit No. 113 of 1978 by which the suit itself was decided.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is defendant in the Suit No. 113 of 1978 filed by one Kewala Prasad-respondent No. 3 for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an unregistered agreement dated 5.5.1976.4. The defendant-petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and asserted that Ram L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »