Allahabad Court August 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.
Rajpal and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ160
ORDERR.K. Rastogi, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the orders dated 20-12-2007, 8-4-2008 and 8-7-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIIth Fast Track Court No. 3, Mathura in Misc. case No. 1 of 2008 (State v. Rajpal and Anr.).2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the accused appellants had stood sureties for the accused Maluka in ST. No. 180 of 2005 (State v. Maluka) pending before the above Court. The accused Maluka had absented and a report was received that he had been absconding. Notices were issued to the appellant sureties to produce the accused Maluka. These notices were personally served upon the appellants but they did not appear. Hence an order was passed on 20-12-07 for forfeiting the amount of bail bond and for issuing notices to the sureties under Section 446 Cr. P. C to show cause as to why the amount of 50,000/- should not be realised on them. The appellants did not appear in spite of service of this notice also. He...
Ganga Charan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC986
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage.This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's total recovery was 69.54%, which is less than the required percentage, i.e. 70%.The petitioner, who is a collection peon, has been discharging duty since 1993. The petitioner claims regularisation on the basis of satisfactory service of last four fasli years.2. According to U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (in short 'Rules'), it is not mandatory for the peon to establish that he recovered the dues to the tune of 70%. The duty of the collection peon is to assist the Collection Amin to recover the dues. Though under the relevant rules w...
SachIn and NitIn Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)24VST369(All)
1. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. M.K. Chaudhary for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice dated July 23, 2008 issued by the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Taxes, Faizabad Range B, Faizabad, for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 has filed the present writ petition.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On the basis of an agreement with the ex-U. P. principal, the petitioner has purchased mentha oil on behalf of the ex-U. P. principal, and thereafter the goods were dispatched to the ex-U. P. principal.4. The petitioner has alleged that for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 after making detailed enquiry during the assessment proceedings the assessment orders were passed on...
Abdul Gaffar Son of Sri Abdul Rajjak Vs. Viiith Additional District Ju ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC66
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of Cantonment Board Cantt Kanpur respondent No. 2.2. Property in dispute is a shop belonging to Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur. Abdul Rajjak lather of petitioner and original respondents No. 4 to 7 was tenant of the shop in dispute. Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur initiated proceedings for eviction of Abdul Rajjak father of the petitioner, petitioner and A. Qayyum petitioner's brother under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, which was numbered as Case No. 1338 of 1986. Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur allowed the case and directed eviction of Abdul Rajjak and others.3. Against the said order, only petitioner filed appeal, which was numbered as P.P. Appeal No. 39 of 1987. In the appeal, substitution application was filed on 13.11.1991 as Abdul Rajjak had died on 06.11.1991.4. Appeal was filed by present petitioner Abdul Gaffar and he impleaded his father Abdul Raj...
Abdul Aziz (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Vth Additional District Judg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4073
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent Sri Sukhdeo Gandhi, since deceased and survived by respondents No. 2 to 10 Smt. Parvati Gandhi and others on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 72/11 of 1972. Release application was rejected through order dated 29.3.1985 passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Agra. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Mohalla Charsu Darwaja, Agra. Rent is only Rs. 22 per month. Against the Judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, landlords filed Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1985. Vth A.D.J., Agra allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 28.5.1986 set aside the judgment and order passed by prescribed authority and allowed the release application.2. This writ petition is directed against border passed by the lower appellate court. Writ petition was o...
indrajeet S/O Bhagelu and Baijnath Vishwakarma S/O Indrajeet Vs. Speci ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC734
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Prabhat Kumar Pandey filed S.C.C. Suit No. 02 of 1993 against tenants petitioners for eviction. In the plaint, it was stated that provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the building in dispute. Tenanted building in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 12/- per month. It was also stated that shop in dispute had been sub-let to Kishori Lal by the tenants petitioners. Ground of material alteration was also taken.3. It was also stated that rent from July, 1992 till October, 1992 had not been paid. It was also stated that at the time of filing of the suit, valuation of the shop must be around Rs. 1 lac, hence rent must be Rs. 10,000/- per year. Notice of termination of tenancy was sent on 27.11.1992. Petitioners were continuing as tenants since before 1983. However condition of the tenanted accommodation ...
Ruby International Annapurna Metal Peetal Through Its Proprietor, Sri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC345; [2008(119)FLR748]; (2009)IILLJ411All
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an appeal of the defendants, appellants herein, from the jugement and order dated 29lh March, 2008 passed by the concerned Commissioner, Moradabad, appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as the 'Commissioner') awarding a sum of Rs. 1,87,182/- on account of injury sustained by the claimant/respondent herein, along with penalty of Rs. 93,000/-. Learned Counsel appearing for both the contesting parties agreed about hearing of the appeal on the informal papers at the stage of admission, accordingly the Court has proceeded.2. The question arose before the Commissioner about master-servant relationship between the appellants-employer and the respondent-employee, who became injured by the cause of accident. The claimant asserted that he was under the employment of the appellants for last ten years, which the appellants have refused. In such circumstances, the Commissioner called upon the appellants to produce attendance registers an...
Krishna Mohan Sharma Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR471]; (2009)IILLJ161All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing respondent No. 1 and Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.The facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman concerned on account of his termination from the service w.e.f. February 10, 1983.The Conciliation proceeding having failed, the matter of dispute was referred to Labour Court, Agra wherein it was registered as 100/84. The reference order is as under:Vernacular matter omitted.2. According to the workman, he was working as Gate Keeper in the, respondent-cinema w.e.f. March 5, 1979 and his services were dispensed with 1983 without any reasonable cause and in violation of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which are mandatory in nature.The case of the employer was that it was admitted that the workman was appointed as Gate-Keeper and he had allowed some persons without ticket inside ...
Bishambher Singh Bhadoria Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR960]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.Since all the petitions relate to the same incident, consequently all the writ petitions are decided together by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are constables and their services were dismissed with under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.It transpires that the petitioners were posted at the Police Station and, within its vicinity, a theft was committed in a Jewellery shop. A first information report against the said theft was lodged at the police station. A preliminary inquiry was held and it was found that the petitioners could have avoided the theft, had they were cautious The preliminary report, further stated that it would be a waste of time to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the petitioners. ...
Chandra Prakash Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: (2010)27VST105(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') arise out of common order dated March 5, 2001 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby and whereunder it has dismissed all the three Second Appeal Nos. 513, 515 and 514 of 2000 filed by the dealer in respect of an order passed under Section 8C of the Act demanding additional security and cancellation of registration both provincial and Central. The controversies involved in these revisions are interconnected and interwoven and as was suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The applicant who is engaged in the business of foodgrains, galla, tilhan, bardana, kirana, gur, rab, posta dana and oil cake, etc., applied for and was granted registration under Section 8A of the Act and under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The registration was granted on March 22, 1999 and a security of Rs. 15,0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »