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.
District Panchayat (Zila Parishad) Through Upper Mukhya Adhikari Vs. P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR922]; (2009)ILLJ561All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. They have submitted their written arguments and case laws.2. This petition has been filed challenging validity and correctness of the award dated 8.3.1995 passed by the labour court in adjudication case No. 90 of 1993.3. Services of respondent No. 2-workman are claimed to have been illegally terminated with effect from 1.1.1990, in respect of which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State government to the labour court where it was registered as adjudication case No. 90 of 1993.4. Case of the workman before the labour court was that he was appointed in 1963 by Zila Parishad, Kanpur on the post of Pond Moharrir. He continuously worked upto 31.12.1989 and his services have been illegally terminated without any reason with effect from 1.1.1990.5. It appears from the award that the employers in spite of service of notices/summons through registered post, neither filed written arguments nor appeared in the proceedings...
Prashant Rajan Singh Son of Late Awadhesh Singh Vs. the State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ489All
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the District Agriculture Raksha Adhikari, Ballia (respondent No. 3).2. The counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, and the writ petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit, the relevant facts, as noted hereinafter, emerge.3. Awadhesh Singh, father of the petitioner was working on the post of senior clerk in the office of the respondent No. 3. The said Awadhesh Singh (father of the petitioner) expired on 9-9-2000 while he was in service. After the death of the said Awadhesh Singh, the petitioner was appointed as junior clerk on 13-11-2000 on compassionate grounds.4. It appears that consequent upon the death of the said Aw...
Hansraj Gupta and Co. (Pvt. Ltd.) Through Its General Attorney, Sri Kr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR743]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned award dated 23.12.1983 passed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 133 of 1980 directing reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with full back wages.3. By interim order dated 25.4.1984 the operation of impugned award was stayed. The petitioner was directed to pay wages to respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 23.12.1983 with an option to continue to pay him wages month to month or take work from him.4. The Backdrop of the case is that respondent No. 2 was appointed on 28.9.76 and was working as a 'Tagadgir' at Bulandshar. His main duties were to realize payment from the customers who had purchased seeds and manure on credit from the petitioner company as per the list furnished by the Delhi office of the petitioner Company as well as to also to promote the sales of the employer. As engagement with the company was for a very short tenure i.e. with effect from 30....
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. Purwar Sales Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST49(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commercial Tax Tribunal is legally justified in holding that maize flakes are covered under the term 'kachri' which is an exempted item under Schedule I of the Value Added Tax Act and hence exempted from tax Kachri is a preparation of rice in view of decision of the honourable court reported in Kasturi Lal & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1987] UPTC 1298 as well as in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Melrose Biscuit Co. reported in .(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commercial Tax Tribunal is legally justified in giving direction for release of the goods without any demand of security whereas the imported goods are liable to tax and not exempted under Schedule I of the Value Added Tax Act?2. It arises out of the proceeding seizing the goods (maize flakes) of the dealer-opposite party which were loaded in truck No. U.P-78-BN-4218. These goods were sei...
Shikhar Chand Pradeep Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST99(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated December 29, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 33 of 1999 whereby and whereunder it has granted eligibility certificate to the applicant for the remaining period with effect from February 6, 1995, the day when the applicant applied for the grant, for second time.2. The applicant is a 'new unit' within the meaning of Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It was established in June, 1994 for manufacture of veneer core flush door, pannel door, plywood and block board, etc. The production of the unit was started on June 18, 1994 and the first sale took place on June 22, 1994. It applied for grant of exemption under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to it, on December 6, 1994, i.e., within six months from the date of first production, requisite papers were sent by registered post to the General Manager, District Industrie...
Yogendra Nath Tripathi S/O P.N. Tripathi Vs. Inspector General, Centra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1045]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector on 12th January, 1974 and, in January, 1984, was promoted as a Sub Inspector. In December, 1990, the petitioner was promoted as an Inspector (Executive). By an order dated 3/4th June, 2002, the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, North Sector, New Delhi issued an order under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.2. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was arbitrary and that no reasonable person could form an opinion for compulsorily retirement on the basis of the material available on the service record of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the...
Shri Vinod Kumar Singh Son of Late Raj Mani Singh Vs. State of Uttar P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3392(All); [2008(119)FLR1149]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.A Class-IV post became vacant in the institution upon the retirement of Sri Jawahar on 31.3.2006. The Principal, being the competent authority, issued an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 17.6.2006 inviting applications for filling up the said post. The Principal also wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools seeking permission to fill up the said post. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19.6.2006, granted permission to the institution to fill up the vacancy. Based on the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner also applied and was selected by the competent authority and, an appointment letter dated 28.6.2006 was issued. The necessary papers were forwarded by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19.9.2006, refused to accord financia...
Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Hridaya Prakash Vs. Smt. Ruchi D/O Late Roshan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3390(All); II(2008)DMC706
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff/appellant against defendant/respondent upon notice. Both the learned Counsel argued at length before this Court. No other party is available, therefore, we wanted to go into merits of the appeal at the very beginning. We find the appeal arising out of dismissal of the suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.).2. The contention of the plaintiff/appellant is that whether the marriage was at all solemnized or not, is a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, there is no scope for dismissal of the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Twice chances were given to the defendant/respondent to file written statement but she failed to file the same and the suit has been decided against the plaintiff/appellant.3. The defendant/respondent has taken a plea that an earlier suit was dismissed for defau...
Nagar Palika Parishad Through Its Chairman Vs. State of U.P. Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3397(All)
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Sri A.S. Diwekar in support of this petition. Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State appears for the respondents. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since the question involved is a short question, Sri Srivastava has agreed that the matter be heard forthwith.2. The petitioner herein is a Municipal Council situated in district Jalaun. The petitioner has been following its bye laws which have been framed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and as per the previous directions of the State Government and the authorities concerned. These bye laws have been framed way back on 18th March, 1987. As per Clause 18 of these bye laws the number of the registered contractors is restricted to ten, therefore, the Municipal Council cancelled the registration of the contractors who were in excess over this number. Now the District Magistrate has issued an order on 18th June, 2008 interfering with this decision of the petitioner-Municipal Cou...
Uptron Powertronics Employees Union Through Its Secretary Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1164]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Narain, Advocate and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees Union through its Secretary challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 7.3.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2006 and award dated 8.7.2005 published on 19.12.2005 passed by the Labour Court (2), U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 346 of 2003 by which the following matter of dispute referred to it for adjudication in exercise of powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius vkns'k fn0 8-4-2000 }kjk Jfed Jh fodze flag iq= Jh jkeiky flag in&lhfu;j VsfDuf'k;u dks fn;k x;k n.M mfpr ,ao oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh rks Jfed D;k fgr ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fooj.k lfgr 3. By the aforesaid award the Labour Court has held that since the cause of action has arisen at the in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »