Allahabad Court March 2009 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.
Smt. Seema Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority/Commissioner Workman Compens ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2693
Shishir Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 3.9.2008 by which the amendment application filed by petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner's husband was an employee of respondent No. 3 as a driver. In an accident, he was injured. Subsequently, he expired on 1.1.2005. A claim petition under Workman Compensation Act as Case No. 71 of 2006 was filed before the Labour Court i.e. respondent No. 1 for awarding compensation. During pendency of claim petition, it was revealed that by mistake of the counsel, the date of death instead of 1.1.2005, 30.12.2004 has been mentioned. Then an application for amendment has been filed only amending the date in the application was moved but the respondent No. 1 has rejected the same without assigning any reason and without mentioning the fact that why this application filed by petitioner is being rejected. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 4....
Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1849
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. According to the petitioner he was appointed in the year 1985 as Jeep Driver in the office of Executive Engineer, Mant Branch Ganga Nahar, Mathura on temporary/daily wages and that he continued to work as such till November, 1993 with artificial breaks. In para 8 of the writ petition it has been stated:that thereafter petitioner's services were orally terminated without any rhyme or reason although the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularised by the respondent.3. It is also mentioned that on 18.3.1993 petitioner had made a representation, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further mentioned that petitioner was agitating the matter before the respondents continuously. Thereafter, it is mentioned that through letter dated 11.6.1997 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) written by Executive Engineer to Superintendent Engineer (S.E.) drainage Mandal, Aligarh and through letter order dated 30.6.1997 b...
Upper Deob Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1885
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Both the petitioners have challenged the same order, i.e., order dated 15.9.2005 (Annexure-11 to the first writ petition) passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6H (1) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (equivalent to Section 33C of I. D. Act). The application on which impugned order was passed, was filed on 28.12.2004 by respondent Nos. 2 to 6, Sri Deshpal Sharma and others against both the petitioners.3. Services of these five workmen (respondents No. 2 to 6) were terminated by the petitioners. They raised industrial dispute. Matter was referred to the Labour Court, U. P., Meerut, where it was registered as Adjudication Case Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, all of 1981. Services had been terminated on 28.2.1979. All the cases were decided by common judgment/award dated 6.6.1983 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Termination order was declared to be illegal and reinstatement with full back wages was directed. However, ...
Ashok Kumar Saxena Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ394All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.Petitioner was a clerk-cum-cashier in Punjab National Bank. There were allegations of embezzlement of lacs of rupees against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. Enquiry was held in which he did not participate. The Inquiry Officer gave a report against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service without notice. The punishment was confirmed by senior Regional Manager/Disciplinary authority through order dated August 30,2000 which was confirmed in appeal through order dated December 7, 2000. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition.2. Petitioner admits that inspite of several notices he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The only point raised in the writ petition and argued at the time of hearing was that for the charges levelled against the petitioner a First Information Report had also been lodged against the petitioner and in consequence thereo...
Mehar Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2119
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was a Sepoy in Indian Army. He was recruited in 1979. In the year 1986 petitioner was attached to 104, Engineer Regiment, Allahabad. Petitioner was charged with dereliction of duty on the allegation that he had left the guard duty without order from his superior officers on 8.5.1986. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and asserted that he was absent from quarter guard only during the time when he was not doing duty of No. 1 sentry. The time when petitioner was found absent was in between 3.10 a.m. to 4.10 a.m. on 8.5.1986. Petitioner was charged with the misconduct as described under Section 36(d) of Army Act. A Summary Court Martial was held in which petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in civil prison and he was also dismissed from service. The order was passed on 29.5.1986 which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition and has been challenged through this writ pe...
Social Upliftment of Village Down Trodden and Health Action Through It ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1842
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. The sole point for consideration is whether the instrument in question which is a lease deed is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35(v) or under Article 35 (vi) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 9 of 2001, w.e.f. 25.4.2001. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society is to render effective services to the poor and down trodden class residing in villages, in almost every field. The petitioner No. 2 claims himself as President of the society and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, according to their own showing, have nothing to do with the society. Mahant Subhash Chandra claiming himself chela Bajrangdas Siwaith/Manager of Sri Ram Janki Mandir situate in village Kataibna Tehsil Aurai district Sant R...
Smt. Dulari Devi and ors. Vs. Uma Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1883
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 334 of 1994 against defendant-appellants for permanent injunction in respect of part of araji plot No. 227 having a total area of 83 decimal. The said araji was the joint bhoomidhari land of the two brothers Suleman and Usman in equal proportion. In a division between the two brothers Suleman got half share situate towards northern side having an area 41-1/2 decimal whereas Usman received the other half situate towards southern side having an area 41-1/2 decimal. Suleman transferred part of his land, i.e., 3-1/2 decimal vide sale deed dated 23.8.1993 and another part, i.e., 7-1/2 decimal by sale deed dated 12.7.1994 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Thus, the plaintiff-1 respondents claimed to be the owners 'in possession of 21 decimal of the land falling to the share of Suleman. The balance land of his share, i.e., 20-1/2 decimal was transferred by Suleman by yet another sale deed dated 28.10.1995 in fav...
Govind Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC28
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri Govind Lal petitioner in person and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. Petitioner before this Court was appointed as Block Development Officer in the Rural Development Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh after selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission by direct recruitment on 17.8.1984. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the charges under an order dated 30th March, 1992. This order of suspension was subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1992. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court with a direction to respondent authorities to complete the departmental proceedings against the petitioner within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before the authority concerned. Since departmental proceedings were not completed against the petitioner within the time specified, the writ petitioner filed second petition, being Writ Petition ...
Ashutosh Kumar Vs. Anjali Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All100; 2009(2)AWC1703
S.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. This is husbands appeal. He had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. In the said proceedings issues were framed and the issue No. 3 happened to be with regard to jurisdiction of the Family Court, Allahabad. This issue has been decided as a preliminary issue vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2008 and it has been held that the Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction and therefore plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court of jurisdiction.2. The appeal was presented before the Registrar General on 18.2.2009 whereupon the office reported it to be beyond limitation by -53 days as under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the limitation provided for presenting the appeal is 30 days only. Against this report the appellant has preferred objections contending that basically the appeal is under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the limitation provided is 90 days and therefore th...
Arma Niranjan and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1887
S.U. Khan, J.1. In para 3 of the writ petition it has been stated that earlier also petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 19944 of 2008 with regard to same controversy which is involved in this writ petition but under assurance given by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. to settle the dispute by adjusting the petitioner in the school of their choice petitioner withdrew the above mentioned writ petition on 19.4.2008. The file of the said writ petition has also been summoned. The said writ petition was dismissed by the following order on 19.4.2008:Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. In view of the aforesaids statement writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.2. In my opinion after dismissal of the earlier writ petition as withdrawn without any liberty to file another writ petition on the same cause of action having been granted debars the petitioner from filing another writ petition on the principles of Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »