Allahabad Court May 2011 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. C.P. Soni and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 23.04.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.27 of 2000. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Chandra Prakash Soni, respondent No.1 who was conductor w.e.f. 25.08.1997 was just and valid or not. 3. Services were terminated after holding domestic inquiry, which was initiated by giving charge sheet dated 27.01.1999 to the workman. The allegation was that on three occasions on surprise inspection of the bus on which respondent No.2 was performing duty as 1conductor several passengers were found without ticket.4. The defence of the respondent No.1 was that on each occasion he was in the process of making tickets. The case of the employer was that firstly on 21.03.1996 at the time of inspection, several passengers were there in the bus but the enti...
Ramesh Chandra Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Heard Mr.N.N.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.2. Since both the Criminal Revisions arise out of the same impugned order, both are being disposed of by the common order.3. The revisionists have challenged the order dated 21 st of January, 2011, passed on the application for discharge basically on the ground that the learned court below has rejected the application without giving any finding in the matter, whereas according to him the order should be supported with the reasons. It is further stated that at least the material, which can be produced by the accused, at the stage contemplated for Section 239 or 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be examined and then the order be passed. In support of his submission he cited the following decisions:-1. Satish Mehra versus Delhi Administration and another, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766.2. East Coast Railway and another versus Mahadev A...
G.S. Singh and Another Vs. Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by Prescribed Authority/ Additional Collector(Finance)/, Kanpur Nagar in case no. 87 of 1989 rejecting the petitioners' application for recall of the order dated 26.12.1989. Another order assailed in the writ petition is dated 12.4.1990 passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, rejecting petitioners' appeal no. 10 of 1990 against above two orders dated 26.12.1989 and 29.1. 1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that 12.10.1989 was fixed for objections and evidence but due to illness of petitioner no. 1, Sri Ganga Sagar Singh who was doing pairvi of the matter, he could not appear on that date. Thereafter on 17.10.1989 petitioner no.2 Shiv Sagar Singh who is real younger brother of petitioner no. 1 met a serious accident while driving motorcycle and was admitted in SGPGI, Lucknow. Petitioner no. 1 being engaged in looking after ...
Ram Samujh and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Heard Sri Faujdar Rai learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State. Sri M.N.Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2.2. This writ petition assails the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.4.2011 whereby proceedings under Section 48 (3)of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been finalised holding that the entries in relation to the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners appears to be forged. This fact has been recorded on the strength of the report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.4.1990 and the report of the consolidation officials dated 13.11.2009.3. The litigation has a chequered history inasmuch as earlier an order had been passed on 8.8.1991 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner that came to be recalled on 28.8.1991. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner Jamuna filed a Writ Petition ...
Bapu Charitable Society Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1 st March, 2011 issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for freehold rights along with the order dated 21 st February, 2011 referred to in the order dated 1 st March, 2011.3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition are; Plot No.287 area 1.69 acre situate in village Paret Chhawani, Etawah is a Nazul land which is recorded in the revenue record as Bunjar under the management of the Collector. The State Government had issued various Government orders beginning from Government order dated 23 rd May, 1992 by which policy for granting freehold rights was enforced. The last such Government order dated 21 st October, 2008 was issued by the State Government modifying the earlier policy and laying down new conditions for grant of freehold righ...
Ms Pan Parag Indian Limited Vs. the Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The revisionist is a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (herein after referred as Act) as well as Central Sales Tax Act and is engaged in the manufacturing of Pan Masala from its factory situate in industrial area Fazalganj, Kanpur. Betel nut (Supari) is one of the raw material used by the revisionist in making Pan Masala. It is generally purchased by the revisionist from outside the State of U.P. and is imported in U.P.2. Revisionist allegedly purchased 212 bags of betel nut (Supari) weighing 15,900 kg. from M/s Madhukar Narsimha Hegde of Sagar in Karnataka vide bill no.293 dated 16.12.2010 against Import Declaration Form 38 No.1234785. The goods were said to have been dispatched vide consignment note No.519692 through East India Transport Agency bearing full particulars of the consignment. The goods on the request of the revisionist were withheld at Nagpur. Subsequently, the goods continued onward journey from Nagpur to Kanpur vide Truck No. UP38-9091. On r...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and two others aggrieved by the order dated 23 rd February, 2006 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner (Prescribed Authority) Azamgarh in the capacity as Workmen Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "Commissioner") deciding the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Workmen Compensation Case before. The petitioners contended that "Fire Department" and its employees are not within the purview of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "1923 Act" and the Fireman of U.P. Government Fire Department is not a "Workman". The commissioner has decided the two issues against petitioners.2. The Commissioner has held that employees of Fire Department are not members of Police Force in view of the definition of "workman" under Section 2(n)(ii) read with entry (xi) Schedule 2 of 1923 Act and a person employed in the service of Fire Brig...
Sajjan Singh Yadav Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Petitioner, Sajjan Singh Yadav, holding office of Principal, J.V. Inter College, Ali Nagar, Kenjara, District Firozabad has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus commanding respondents no.1 and 2 to pay salary on the post of Principal along with entire arrears of salary from the date of his appointment to stop payment of salary to respondent no.5 Lalta Prasad Goswami; and also, to recover money paid to him after 23.12.2005. By subsequent amendment, the petitioner has also sought a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure 16 to the writ petition) issued by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as UPESSB) recommending respondent no.6 for appointment to the post of Principal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that presently he is confining his prayer/relief in so far as it relates to respondent no.6 since respondent no. 5 has already retired in the mea...
Nizam UddIn Vs. D.J. Azamgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents.2. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, K.K. Maheshwari and Rukmani Sevak obtained a money decree against respondent nos. 5 and 6 Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and Bhagwan Das Mangal Das (a trade name). In execution of the decree a house and a shop belonging to the judgment debtor was sold through auction and was purchased by the petitioner on 4.2.1976 for Rs.1,44,000/-. Proceedings for challenging the auction were initiated by the judgement debtor. He also2 deposited the amount under order XXI rule 89 C.P.C. However, executing court/Civil Judge (S.D.), Azamgarh refused to grant benefit of the said rule to the judgment debtor through order dated 1.5.1976 which was confirmed by this court through order dated 19.11.1976.4. Thereafter, matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of Civil Appeal no.236 of 1977 which was disposed of on 14.11.1991 by the foll...
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida, District Gautam Bud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of suit filed by plaintiffsrespondents for injunction restraining defendant-appellant from interfering in possession as well as land should be treated to be out of land acquisition proceeding of property mentioned in the plaint in Schedule-A shown as Bhoomi No.1, Rakba 0-8-15-0, No.127 Rakba 0-14-0 No.128 Rakba 2-19-0, No.39 Rakba 1-2-10 A No.40 Rakba 1-40-0, No.41 Rakba 1-3-0. It was further stated in the plaint that property mentioned in Schedule-A and on the basis of notification issued by respondent No.2 for the purposes of development by defendant No.1 in 1977-78 but the District Magistrate up-tilldate has not given any award and disputed land has not been acquired and possession has never been taken. Plaintiffs are in possession of said property being fact that there are various constructions. If award has not been given within a period of three years from the date of notification, it itself became free from proceeding. Further a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »