Allahabad Court May 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.
Bengalimal, Through His L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Collector
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2596
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for enhancement of compensation.2. Some land for establishing a 220 K.V. Sub-station and construction of staff quarters for the Hydel department of village Kakretha in district Agra was acquired by the State of U.P. The preliminary notification proposing to acquire the land was issued on 1.3.1975 and was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 15.6.1975. The S.L.A.O. offered market value of the acquired land @ 3.50 per sq. yard as per award dated 14.12.1977. The award was not acceptable to the claimants and, therefore, they preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be registered as L.A.R. No. 70 of 1978, Bengalimal and Anr. v. Collector Agra and Anr.. The reference was in respect of three plots of the claimants, i.e., plot No. 339/1 area 1 bigha 6 biswa, 339/2 area 1 bigha 5 biswa and plot No. 341 area 1 bigha 19 b...
i.C.i.C.i. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2576
Amitava Lala, J.1. The controversy in this case is as to whether the Court of Workmen's Compensation, having jurisdiction over the area where the workman or his dependent ordinarily resides, can pass an order awarding compensation without giving any notice to the Commissioner, within whose jurisdiction the accident took place, in the manner prescribed by the Central Government or the State Government concerned. Secondly, when the medical board awarded 50% permanent disability, awarding of compensation to the injured treating it as 100% disability is appropriate or not.2. Without going into the root of controversy with regard to the first issue, we make it clear that if we decide the question for remanding the matter back to the Commissioner with certain directions for the purpose of appropriate adjudication then the question of merit as agitated herein will be heard by the Commissioner on the basis of the submissions to be made by the parties therein. We have no occasion to go into suc...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jagbiri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4090
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company on the ground of quantum in spite of rejection of application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which, according to us, is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Manju and Ors. : 2007 (4) ADJ 101 : 2007 (2) ACCD 732 (All) : 2007 (2) AWC 1927, following three Judges' Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolleta Rohatgi and Ors. : AIR 2002 SC 3350 : 2003 (1) AWC 23 (SC). Ratio of such judgment is also followed in two other three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. : 2003 (3) SCC 524.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that by a subsequent order of a two Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 17301-17302/ 2007 converted to Civil Appeal Nos. 6026 and 6027 of 2007, United India Insurance Comp...
Sheesh Ram and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2459
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th March, 1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad by which he has rejected the application of the petitioners dated 3.7.1998 under Section 42A read with Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in a consolidation proceeding held in village Mahiuddinpur Mainapur, Pargana Jalalabad, Tehsil and District, Ghaziabad chaks were allotted. The proceeding in respect of the allotment of the chak had become final. However, it is not clear that up to what stage the same had become final but there is no dispute in this regard in the present petition. It, appears that the petitioners had moved an application dated 28.4.1972 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut under Section 42A of the Act for the correction of the mistake. Vide order...
Uma Devi Vs. Smt. Chandra Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2466
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. The suit was decreed and the property was partitioned equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. While decreeing the suit, the Court directed that a preliminary decree be drawn, against which, the defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed in default and a restoration application has been filed which is pending. In the meanwhile, an application was filed before the trial court to the effect that an Amin's report be called to ascertain the share of the parties as per the decree. The Amin submitted a report defining the shares of the property. An objection was filed by the judgment debtor which has been rejected by the impugned order and the trial court directed that a final decree be prepared. The defendant, being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition.2. In my opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable. The order of the trial court partakes the nature of a decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. In S. Satnam Singh and Ors. v....
Smt. Pushpa Anand and ors. Vs. Gopal NaraIn Sehgal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All133
ORDERV.D. Chaturvedi, J.1. This writ petition is directed to quash the order dated 7-11-2008 and order dated 6-4-2009 passed by the appellate court.2. The appeal filed by the tenant against the order passed on the application under Section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was pending in the appellate court. The writ petitioner who is a tenant moved an application during the pendency of the appeal stating therein that the son of the landlord is already employed at another place and in support of his contention he filed an affidavit as an evidence on this point. The objection was filed by the opposite party to which the cross-objection was filed by the petitioner. The opposite party again filed an objection against the cross-objection. The appellate court, in view of the ruling cited by it in its order, passed the order that these objections and cross objection etc., will be disposed of at the time of disposal of the appeal. This order dated 7-11-2008 was requested to be withdrawn by a subse...
Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2630
Ashok Bhushan and R.A. Singh, JJ.1. Heard Shri S.P. Gupta, learned senior advocate assisted by Pushpila Bisht for the petitioner, Shri S. G. Hasnain, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Alok Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri Rohit Agarwal for respondent No. 5.2. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.3.2009, passed by respondent No. 3 granting mining permit to the respondent No. 5 for a period of three months in continuation of earlier mining permit dated 1.12.2008. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondent authorities to restrain the respondent No. 5 from undertaking mining operation or lifting of sand from the sand bearing area Gata No. 25 situate in Village Manglaura, Tehsil Kairana. District Muzaffarnagar. A mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondent authorities to settle the sand bearing area, i.e., Gata No. 25 situate...
Shekhar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3181
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by a sitting member of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly who is detained in prison facing criminal charge under Sections 323, 342, 457, 364, 302, 201, 120B, I.P.C. and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the session of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition are : The petitioner contested the general election of Legislative Assembly from the State of U.P. in the year 2007 as a ruling party candidate from Auraiya Sadar Constituency No. 285 and was declared elected. On 24.12.2008, an F.I.R. was lodged by one Smt. Shashi Gupta wife of Manoj Kumar Gupta an Engineer working with the State Government under Sections 323, 342, 457 and 364, I.P.C. with the allegation that in the intervening night three persons came at their residence and had beaten the husban...
Mohd. Muzammil Khan Vs. Mohd. Nadir Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3277
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.2.2009, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2001 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Aligarh, whereby the application No. 117Ga (under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act) for return of plaint to the plaintiff to present before the competent court has been dismissed.2. The suit inter alia was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment by the plaintiff-respondent against the revisionist. In the said suit an application was filed by the revisionist under Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act (in short 'Act') for return of plaint alleging that the intricate question of title is involved in the matter. Therefore, the Court was not competent in terms of the aforesaid Section to decide the suit. The said application by order dated 1.5.2004, was dismissed by the court below holding that the application filed under Section 23 of the Act is misconceived and has no force., Subsequent thereto another a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›