Allahabad Court September 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.
Brijesh Kumar Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3949
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh and Shri Sharad Malviya, the learned Counsel for respondent.2. The plaintiff Smt. Rambachchi Devi instituted a suit for maintenance and partition in respect of certain movable and immovable properties against the defendants, who were the children of her husband from the first wife. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 was not maintaining her, and therefore, the suit was instituted for the reliefs claimed by her. The defendants contested the claim and submitted that the plaintiff had only a limited right under a Will dated 15.5.1967, executed by the husband of the plaintiff, and therefore, she was not entitled either for maintenance or for partition of the properties. The trial court, after considering the material evidence on record, dismissed the suit for maintenance, but decreed the suit for partition of the houses holding that the plaintiff was entitled to l/16th share. The said decree became final and was not challenged by the def...
District Inspector of Schools Vs. Pradumn Kumar Gaur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC50
ORDERC.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.1. Respondent-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 9.11.1998, passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26830 of 1997, has preferred this special appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.2. Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, learned standing counsel, appears on behalf of the appellant.3. It is not in dispute that the date of birth of the writ petitioner-respondent was recorded as 1st October, 1939 in his service book and on that basis, he attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.1997. However, after his retirement, a complaint was made that in fact, his date of birth is 1.10.1936 and, therefore, he shall not be entitled for the remuneration as also the three years' period that he had served after attaining the age of superannuation taking his date of birth to be 1st October, 1939. The learned single Judge taking into account the fact that the writ petitioner-respondent served till 30.9.1997 on the basis of hi...
Yadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3980
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J. 1. Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by order dated 3.8.2009, passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39360 of 2009 has preferred this appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant is a constable and by order dated 15.5.2008, passed by Superintendent of Police (Railways), Agra, he has been dismissed from service. Before dismissal of the writ petitioner-appellant, no inquiry was held as in the opinion of the disciplinary authority the holding of the departmental inquiry was not just and practicable. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the disciplinary authority has held that if a detailed departmental inquiry is conducted, writ petitioner-appellant has to be continued in service which will have an adverse effect on the morale of the other police personnel. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the gr...
Suresh Chandra Rai Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4202
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Lal Babu Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. P. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The grievance of petitioner, in short, is that he retired from the post of Junior Engineer on 30.9.2002 but the respondents paid the amount of his provident fund only on 28.3.2005 to the tune of Rs. 8,98,943 but no interest on the aforesaid amount was paid from the date of retirement till the actual payment. In para 11 of the writ petition he has categorically asserted that on delayed payment of 30 months no interest on the amount of provident fund has been paid to him.3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and in reply to para 11 of the writ petition it is stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest as per his claim on account of his own default. Thereafter, in para 6 of the counter-affidavit they have given reference to some orders passed by certain authorities and the ...
Ved Pal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4199
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as alleged in 1990 but his engagement was discontinued on 16.10.1998 whereagainst he filed Writ Petition No. 7444 of 1999 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.3.1999 with the following observation:I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. As the question involved is too trivial to drag on unnecessarily before this Court hence I dispose of the. writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondents that in case the work and post are available in the said Cheetal Park or elsewhere the petitioner may be allowed to work and paid salary.3. Pursuant thereto it is said by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though he made representation but he was not engaged. The fact remains that the petitioner after having been discontinue...
Shri Ram Das Vs. Punjab Iron Stores and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC93
C.K. Prasad, C.J.1. This appeal has come up for consideration before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge by his order dated 18.8.1975. The facts, which led the learned single Judge to make reference, are as follows:2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendants are his sole selling agent and the plaintiff filed the suit for accounting against the defendants in respect of commission sale made by them at its sole selling agent. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 15,437.50 and on the suit so valued, paid an ad-valorem court fee of Rs. 1,208.25. The trial court decreed the suit with cost on 9.9.1958 but while decreeing so, directed that for the purpose of commission the account of sale effected by the defendants between 18.2.1951 to 15.2.1954, shall alone be considered. It further observed that defendants 3 to 5 shall not be personally liable for the decretal liability. Three first appeals were filed in this Court, one at the instance of the plaintiff, other filed by defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›