Allahabad Court June 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekha Rani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4018
ORDERAmitava 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 Rohtagi and Ors. : AIR 2002 SC 3350 : 2003 (1) AWC 23 (SC). Ratio of such judgment is also followed by 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. Nos. 17301-17302/07 converted to Civil Appeal Nos. 6026-6027 of 2007, United India Insurance Compa...
Babban Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2881
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.2. The petitioner a constable in Civil Police was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on July 3, 2008, under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short the 'Rules of 1991', without conducting departmental enquiry on the ground that on the charges levelled against him, it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the order and has directly approached this Court for setting aside the order on the ground that the facts and circumstances, in which the petitioner is facing a criminal trial under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being caught for accepting bribe red handed, would not be a ground on which it can be said that it is not reasonably practicable to hold...
Raja Ram Yadav Vs. Sate of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3197
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.2. In the year, 2006, the petitioner a Constable No. 218 in civil police was posted at P.S. Kotwali, district Ghazipur. It is alleged that on 22/23.7.2006 when he was assigned duties with Circle Officer, Saidpur, he left his duties, stopped Truck No. UP61-C-5237 and was demanding money, when the Superintendent of' Police, Ghazipur reached on the spot. The petitioner and one other person ran away leaving the motor cycle, on which they were riding on the spot. The truck driver and the trader sitting in the truck made a complaint about illegal demands made by the petitioner and his accomplice. A preliminary enquiry was conducted, after which a regular departmental enquiry was held by Shri Dilip Kumar, Addl. Superintendent of Police (Rural), district Ghazipur. The enquiry officer submitted his findings and recommended to punish the petitioner with dismissal ...
Lg Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(All)88; [2009]22STT269
Krishna Murari, J.1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 1-5-2009 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, disposing of the appellant's application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax demand and penalty with a direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore within 8 weeks and report compliance on 25-6-2009.2. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under.3. Appellant was issued a notice dated 10-10-2007 to show cause as to why,(i) Education Cess amounting to Rs. 3,58,717 short/not paid by them and interest accrued thereon, should not be demanded and recovered from them respectively under Sections 11A & 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the amount of Rs. 2,54,805 already paid should not be appropriated and adjusted against the total amount so payable;(ii) Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›