Allahabad Court September 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through the Regional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR489]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. List has been revised. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not present. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri Sameer Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The checking team found that the workman, who was working as a conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C., was carrying 22 passengers without ticket and, on this basis, the workman was charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry was held, in which the Inquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report and other extenuating factors passed an order of removal of the service of the workman. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.The terms of the reference order is something like this:Whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e....
Mohd. Haneef, Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009All53; 2009(1)AWC80
B.K. Narayana, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.5.1993 passed by the Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Revenue & Finance). Lucknow, respondent No. 2 by which the petitioners were required to pay Rs. 1,45,000 as deficiency in stamp duty and the order dated 20.6.1994 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1 rejecting the revision of the petitioners filed against the order dated 26.5.1993 by means of which the petitioners were also required to pay Rs. 1,45,000/- as penalty.2. If According to the petitioners M/S Giriraj Udyog Ltd. executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioners on 4.2.1992 in respect of the building of lessor namely Hindustan Steel Re-rolling Mill for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- and any interest free security deposit of Rs. 10 lacs which was to be refunded to the lessee by the lessor after termination of the lease.3. The petitioners paid Rs. 1566...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›