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.
Kushwaha B.K. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR785]; (2009)IILLJ172All
V.M. Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. Notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 has been accepted by Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned Counsel appearing for the said respondents.2. The petitioner is an Officer of Scale-II in the respondent-Bank. A charge-sheet dated July 31, 2000 was issued to the petitioner levelling against him nine charges. While the enquiry in respect of the said charge-sheet was going on, another charge-sheet dated January 13, 2001 was issued to him levelling six charges. After the departmental proceedings were completed, the Enquiry Reports were submitted by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the said two charge-sheets.3. The Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order on November 30, 2002 awarding punishment to the petitioner with regard to the first charge-sheet. The petitioner filed an Appeal against that order.4. Similarly, the Disci...
Nandpuri Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC585
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Deepak Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Syyed Hussain, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the State-respondents. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, appears for intervener.2. The petitioner claims to be a co-operative housing society formed by some 50 members, who are employees of the income tax department. The petitioner claims to have purchased a property known as Rasulpur House and land adjoining thereto bearing old House No. 1-C, Mahanagar, and new No. 545/1, Mahanagar at Lucknow, recorded at Khasra No. 261, in a public auction made by the Tax Recovery Officer of the income tax department. It has purchased the property to put up its housing society over there. The sale is stated to have been confirmed by the auctioning authority and the sale certificate is issued on 28.3.1979 in favour of the society and the sale is duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lucknow on 22.5.1979.3. The respondent No. 4-Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) of Sta...
Shahzad Behari Lal Vs. Special Judge (S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4076
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Landlord-petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 2 Ram Mohan Tewari for eviction from the tenanted accommodation in dispute which is a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. Prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was also made in the suit. J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Banda decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 6.11.1998. However, finding on the question of sub-letting was recorded against the plaintiff and it was held that there was no sub-letting. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant-respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C.3. Revision No. 79 of 1998. A.D.J./Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act), Banda allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 7.9.1999, set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court to make fresh calculation to ascertain as to whether amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was suf...
Radhey Shyam Nishad Son of Shri Cheedi Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC686
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri R.P. Ram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the orders dated 19.10.1996, 16.12.2005, 26.08.2006 and 29.08.2006, and further has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of Operator Gr. I. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed on work charge as a Motor Boat Driver/Operator in the Irrigation Department in the year 1971, and since then, is working on that post. The petitioner alleged that the services of 19 other employees in the Irrigation Department, who were junior to the petitioner, have been regularised, and that the petitioner has been discriminated and, has not been regularised in the service of the Department, for reasons best known to the respondents. The details of the persons, who were junior to the...
Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Cen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC27
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties at length.2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of impugned award dated 22nd November, 2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U. P. in Industrial Dispute Case No. 54 of 2000, in the matter of Raj Bahadur Yadav v. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Varanasi.3. The claim of respondent/ workman is that he was a permanent employee of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st September, 1988 he was drawing salary of Rs. 750 per month, at the time of his alleged verbal termination from service by the bank from the forenoon of 11th August, 1999 the workman concerned raised aforesaid Industrial Disputed No. 54 of 2000 challenging his termination on the ground that it was illegal and without jurisdiction as the bank had not complied with the conditions precedent to retrenchment under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial ...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Om Trading Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST416(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Challenging the legality and validity of the order dated April 7, 2000, the present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, has been filed relevant to the assessment year 1997-98.2. The opposite party (hereinafter called as, 'the dealer') carries on the business of balli, firewood, pulpwood, etc. The dealer though disclosed a sale of wood, etc., at Rs. 60,99,456.70, but did not accept any tax liability. It is also admitted by the dealer that he made the purchases of timber from unregistered dealer without paying any tax. Part of such purchase was disposed of by the dealer by cutting the timber in small sizes and making pulpwood. The pulpwood was sold to M/s. Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur. The remaining timber was sold to unregistered dealer. The assessing officer by the order dated August, 23, 1999, taxed the purchase of timber from unregistered dealer for the period October, 1, 1997 to March, 31, 1998, on the turnover of Rs. 33,51,508. He also t...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Gulshan Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)25VST505(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' against the order dated December 8, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in two connected second appeal Nos. 93 of 1999 and 94 of 1999 (U.P. and Central). The dispute in the present revision relates to the assessment year 1993-94 (U.P.).2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The dealer -opposite party is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of calcium carbonate, etc. The dealer-opposite party, before the assessing authority claimed exemption on the purchase of rice husk purchased from unregistered dealer. The said claim was negatived and best judgment assessment order was passed on January 31, 1997. The appeal against the said order has been allowed in part. The appellate authority found that out of total purchase of Rs. 69,50,000, it has purchased paddy husk of Rs. 40,00,000 which shall be exempt and the remaining amoun...
Commissioner Vs. Kohinoor Glass House
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)25VST135(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These two revisions have been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by the Department against the common order of the Tribunal dated July 22, 2005 whereby and where -under, the Tribunal has held that looking glass is taxable as unclassified item under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.2. The revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 1994-95.4. The facts are not much in dispute. The opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer' imported looking glass/mirror glass from outside of U. P and sold them. The assessing officer on the sale of such looking glass levied trade tax at 15 per cent treating them as imported mirror glass sheet and covered under the entry relating to the glassware. The contention of the dealer-opposite party was that it is not a glassware and as such is liable to be taxed as unclass...
Smt. Mita M. Patel Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4069
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are allottee tenants of two different portions of House No. 26/55, Virhana Road, Kanpur. The portions in dispute in both the writ petitions consist of two rooms on first floor each. In the property in dispute in the first writ petition, previously one Sanad Kumar was the tenant and In the property in dispute in the second writ petition Sri Pyarey Lal alias Hira Lal was the tenant. Both the petitioners alleged that the previous tenants intended to vacate the tenanted accommodations in their possession and on coming to know of the said Intention, petitioners filed allotment applications on 22.4.1982 in the first case and on 24.5.1982 in the second case. According to Para 4 of both the writ petitions on the allotment applications of the petitioners, R.C. & E.O. concerned called for reports from the Rent Control Inspector (R.C.I.), who submitted the report on 4.5.1982 In the first case and on 5....
Subedar Awasthi S/O Shri Bindra Prasad Vs. the State of U.P. Through I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR928]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 28.11.2005 passed by Labour Court, U.P. at Lucknow in adjudication case No. 190 of 2001.3. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1982, the petitioner was deputed to drive bus No. UP78/974 on 07.03.1994 on Unnao-Maurawa route. The case of the department is that a tempo had developed the mechanical fault and as such the checking staff gave signal to the petitioner near Delhi Chowki to stop the bus but he did not stop the bus. Report about of alleged misconduct was submitted by Sri Mushraf Ali, Traffic Superintendent to Regional Manager against the petitioner on 12.03.1994 inter-alia that in spite of being given signal for checking the bus by 5 officers on duty by staff car on 07.03.1994, the petitioner did not stopped the bus.The petitioner was cha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »