Allahabad Court July 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad Camp and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3545
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.2005 passed in Revision No. 1337 of 2003, by which he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the land of Khata No. 434 measuring 40 bigha, 1 biswa, 14 biswansi situated at village Sujawalpur, petitioner was claiming half share. In the consolidation proceeding, petitioner filed objection on 24.1.1987 under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who vide order dated 18.2.1987 allotted on third share each to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner challenged the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who vide order dated 29.9.1988 set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded b...
Parmanand Panday and anr. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3857
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.9.1994 by which the services of the petitioners as Class-IV employee have been terminated by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the D.I.O.S. has orally refused to approve the services of the petitioners as no prior approval was obtained for making appointment.2. Sri D.S.P. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners appointments were made by the competent authority i.e., the Principal of the Institution after advertising the vacancies and for holding the selection of Class-IV employees no prior approval of D.I.O.S.as recorded by the Principal of the college was necessary if the appointment was made prior to 30.6.1992. Otherwise also in case of Class-IV employee approval of District Inspector of School is not necessary only financial concurrence is required. In his submissions the services of the petitioners should not have been termi...
Surya NaraIn Chaudhary Vs. Om Prakash Jaiswal Alias Laloo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3860
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Rajvanshi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Srivastava, advocate appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. The writ petition is listed for admission. As agreed between the counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission itself.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that father of the petitioner, Shiv Narain Chaudhary, instituted an Original Suit No. 192 of 1980 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, for eviction of the contesting respondent on the ground that he is in default in making payment of rent as well as he has caused material alteration to the shop in dispute. The suit was contested by the tenant. The Judge, Small Causes Court, vide its judgment and order dated 28.9.1991 decreed the suit holding that the tenant is in default and on the...
Mohan Lal Srivastava and anr. Vs. Parshottam (D) Through L.Rs. and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3620
ORDERDevi Prasad Singh, J.1. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents.2. Heard Sri K.C. Saxena learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel.The suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner. The said suit was decreed and final decree was prepared (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved against the final decree, the private respondent Sri Parshottam had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The matter was heard by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.) who by the impugned order dated 24.3.2005, directed that the possession of plot No. 109Ka, shall not be delivered to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred.3. The solitary argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel is that Sri Parshottam (now substituted by legal heirs), is not aggrieved party. Hence, the appeal filed before the Commissioner, is no...
Ravindra Nath Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4045
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.2. Petitioner before this Court claims to have been appointed on ad hoc basis against a vacancy caused in L.T. grade on account of retirement of one Harish Chandra Srivastava on 30th June, 1991. According to the petitioner an advertisement was published by the Committee of Management of the Institution, D.A.V. Intermediate College, Meerapur, Allahabad for ad hoc appointment against said vacancy. The petitioner, who was possessed of the prescribed qualification applied in response thereto. He was placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list prepared by Selection Committee. The Management of the institution passed a resolution dated 15th March, 1992 offering ad hoc appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner was infact issued an appointment letter by the Management on 17th March, 1992. Papers qua appointment of the petitioner were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR399(All)
1. The present income-tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been admitted on the following sole substantial question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated December 30, 1999:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee has charged depreciation on the revaluation amounts on assets as per guidance note on treatment of reserve created on revaluation of fixed assets issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India whereas the applicability of the provisions of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and clause 7(2) of Part III of Schedule VI to Companies Act is attracted as to ascertain book profit after deducting the amount of depreciation in view of Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in [1987] 168 ITR 87,110 and Explanation (b) to Section 1...
Om Saran Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC374
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The petitioner has made this writ petition to direct the respondents to pay the salary and emoluments of the post of Principal to the petitioner when he has acted as Principal in the institution from the month of July, 2008 till date. He relied upon the judgments of this Bench dated 18th September, 2008 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 49172 of 2008, Dr. V.K. Tiwari v. Director of Education and Ors.2. Learned standing counsel has taken a different view in view of the judgment in Daljeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2007 (4) ESC 2261 (All) : 2007 (7) AWC 7687 (DB) to substantiate that there is distinction between a Government servant who is promoted to higher post and who is discharging duties of the higher post on the exigencies. Mere discharge of such duties in the higher post cannot be treated as promotion, therefore, the person acted as ad hoc Principal in the institution cannot get salary and emoluments of the regular Principal.3. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned Cou...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Smt. Shyama Devi an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4141
Satish Chandra, J.1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Tewari, learned Counsel for the U.P. S. R. T. C. and Sri M. E. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This 'first appeal from order' has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 101 of 1995, wherein an award of Rs. 1,09,900 was awarded.3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.5.1995 deceased Sri Ram Sundar was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 44-A/0787. When the jeep reached near to village Bedupara, the driver got down for toilet by parking the jeep. In the meantime, a U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 42A/6692 of Faizabad Depot was coming and hit the jeep from the backside. Deceased Sri Ram Sunder and another person namely Safat Ahmad had died on the spot. Other passengers also suffered injuries. Separate claim petitions were filed on behalf of both the deceased persons. The present claim petition ...
Dr. O.P. Gupta and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4038
S.K. Singh and Ashok Srivastava, JJ.1. Heard Sri H. R. Mishra assisted by Sri K. M. Mishra in support of the petition and Sri Shandilya learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel who appeared for the State authority.2. Challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the District Collector, Allahabad dated 26.4.2008 by which the application filed by the petitioners for getting the land in question freehold has been rejected.3. At the very outset it is to be mentioned that although there were several applicants but the Court is informed that the petitioners alone have challenged the impugned order and this has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit also.4. For disposal of writ petition facts in brief will suffice.5. Petitioners and other applicants applied for getting the land known as Nazul Land No. 129 Civil Station freehold. One Satyawati Devi was original lessee of the land and it is on her death by means of subsequent development as will be noticed shortly, the applic...
Maliana Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs. Tej Ram Sharma an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC292
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 the contesting respondent workman.2. Respondent No. 1 Tej Ram Sharma was an employee of the petitioner. He worked with them for 34 years and retired on 31.10.1983. Gratuity was not paid to him hence he filed application under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before Controlling Authority, Meerut under the said Act in the form of Case No. P.G.A. 24/85. The controlling authority decided the matter on 13.3.1986 partly in favour of the petitioner and partly in favour of the workman holding that provisions of the Act were applicable upon the petitioner. However, the claim of the workman that gratuity must be calculated treating him to be employee of regular establishment under Section 4(2) of the Act (@ 15 days wages per year) was not accepted and gratuity was calculated @ 7 days wages per season treating the petitioner to be seasonal establishment under second proviso to Section 4(2) of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »