Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2115a
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Affidavit filed by the learned Standing Counsel be placed on record.2. Heard Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C. P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 24th February, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 1 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 26th September, 2005 by which the agreement of the fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled.4. It appears that on the basis of the complaint made by some of the, villagers on 12.8.2005, show cause notice dated 30.8.2005 has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jewar alleging four irregularities and asking the petitioner to give reply within three days failing which necessary action would be taken against him. Petitioner filed reply da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2400
B.K. Narayana, J.1. Heard Smt. Abha Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, holding brief of Sri R.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 4 and learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 5.2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9.5.2007 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to the extent it purports to reject the petitioner's representation filed by him for being reinstated on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya Kosam Inam, Block Kaushambi, district Kaushambi.3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya Kosam Inam, Block Kaushambi, district Kaushambi, hereinafter referred to as 'the School' on 16.4.1992. The petitioner joined the post of his appointment on 29.4.1992 but the petitioner's salary was not paid, which compelled the petitioner to file an application before the Compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2690
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Petitioner before this Court is owner of the tanker (motor vehicle) which was involved in the accident resulting in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 706 of 2000, Smt. Juveda Khatoon and Ors. v. Surinder Kaur and Ors. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Bareilly after hearing the parties made an award dated 14.12.2005. The operative portion whereof reads as follows:The petition of the petitioners is partly allowed and an award of Rs. 3,35,900 (Rupees three lacs thirty five thousands nine hundred only) is passed In favour of the petitioner and against O.Ps. No. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioners are also entitled to get Interest on the above amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment to them. 30% of the above amount which comes to Rs. 1,00,770, shall be paid to the petitioners by O.Ps. No. 3 and 4 and the remain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2449
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri A.N. Rai for the petitioner and Sri J. N. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.2. The petitioner Mohan Ram has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his salary from the date he has joined his duties pursuant to the appointment letter and, thereafter, to continue to pay salary periodically.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal under the Rules of the Court at this stage.4. The facts in brief as borne out from the writ petition are that Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rampur Kanungoyan, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as 'institution') is a higher secondary school recognized by the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as '1921 Act'). The inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2203
ORDERS.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. This appeal challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court. No. 1, Etawah dated 21.1.2009 by which the composite application filed by the appellant under Section 53/61 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 has been rejected.2. One of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Additional District Judge has not recorded any finding for rejecting the application for appointment of guardian of the mentally ill person which was under Section 53 of the Act.3. The other submission is that the order has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge without giving any notice or opportunity to the appellant with regard to the valuation of the property in respect whereof permission for transfer was sought and as such an incorrect finding has been recorded that the appellant wanted to sell the property at a lower price. The sale deeds relied upon in the report of the Tehsildar indicate otherwise and those have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2504; (2009)IVLLJ866All
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The respondent workman filed a claim application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act alleging that subsistence allowance was not being paid by the employer during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner filed their written statement and contended that the claim application was not maintainable, and that, no application under Section 15 could be filed by the workman, inasmuch as the subsistence allowance was not a wage nor does it come within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner submitted that since subsistence allowance was not a wage, there was no deduction of wages, and consequently, the application under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. A preliminary issue was framed, namely, whether subsistence allowance was part of wages or not The prescribed authority, after considering the matter, held that the subsistence allowance was part of wages, and that, non-payment of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3086
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. Present second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.8.08, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 137 of 2008, Rajan Bhatia v. Smt. Zohra Begum, by which the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 7.8.08, passed in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2008, Rajan Bhatia v. Zohra Begum and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Smt. Zohra Begum W/o Mohd. Hassan plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) against the respondent No. 2 (Sri Harish Bhatia) for release of the shop in question. This case was registered as P.A. Case No. 46 of 2002. This application was rejected by the prescribed authority on 12.12.02.3. Aggrieved from this judgment the respondent No. 1 has filed an app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2121
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal at this stage is,Whether an appeal or a revision is maintainable against the order passed in execution of ejectment decree passed by the court of Small Causes on the objection filed by a third party.It arises on the following facts.THE FACTS2. The pedigree of Wahid (the Appellant), without the unnecessary names, is as follows:Chunni|-------------------------------------------------------------| | |Ahmed Rahim Bux Mst. Sakko|------------------------------------------------------| | |Mohd. Umar Nabi Bux Other heirs| -----------------------------------------------------| | |Bulle Rasoole Other heirs| (the Judgment debtor)Wahid(the Appellant)3. Nabi Bux and other heirs of Rahim Bux filed O.S. No. 118 of 1983 for declaration that they alongwith Mohd. Umar (who was also arrayed as defendant in this suit) were owners of the property in dispute. In this suit the other defendants were, Ahmed son of Chunni, Sita Ram, Ram Jiwan Lal Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2368
S.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Kumar, learned advocate in support of this appeal and Sri H. R. Mishra, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned advocate who appeared for the respondents.These are two appeals clubbed together. Both appeals are by lady challenging the decree for divorce against her and dismissal of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.2. Appeal No. 403/2006 challenges the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur dated 17.8.2006 by which Divorce Petition No. 343/2006 filed by the husband who is respondent here has been decreed and the Appeal No. 404 of 2006 challenges the dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife.3. For disposal of the appeal, necessary facts can be summarised. Marriage between the parties took place eight years before filing of the petition which was filed in the year 2001. Out of the wedlock, just after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2009]184TAXMAN59(All)
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. The petitioner submitted that against the assessment he has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur, i.e., respondent No. 3 along with a stay application in January, 2009 but no order on his stay application has been passed by the Appellate Authority till date and in the meantime the respondent No. 2 is proceeding to recover the amount of penalty, which has been imposed as a result of assessment, which is in appeal pending before the respondent No. 2. He submitted that either the appeal itself ought to have been decided by the Appellate Authority or in any case her stay application ought to have been disposed of and till then no recovery should have been made from her.2. Sri Govind Saran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that on mere asking the appellate authority cannot grant ad interim order unless it is found that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience and the public interest is also ...
Tag this Judgment!