Allahabad Court July 2011 Judgments

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Chakeri Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and Oth ...

Court: Allahabad

Heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 16.03.2000 passed in Adjudication Case No.53 of 1995 published on 18th August, 2000 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court IV, Kanpur (respondent No.2) Sri. S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the pleading regarding maintainability of the reference under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It has been submitted that the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is a Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is totally owned and controlled by the Central Government, Therefore, no reference can be made under the Provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. It has been submitted that the reference by the Governor, State of U.P. was made under Section 4-K of the Industrial Dispute Act. On 23.12.1992, b...

Mohd. Abbas Vs. Mst. Ejazan and Others

Court: Allahabad

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. It is stated that petitioner and respondent no. 1 were married on 7.6.1972 at village Aurangabad, District Meerut. The marriage was solemnized according to law of Shariyat. Respondent no. 1, however, was divorced by petitioner on 23.3.1979. Thereafter, she filed an application no. 46/11 of 1986 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming that 12 years before she was given talaq by petitioner and thus she should be allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The said application was later on transferred to Family Court and was dismissed on 4.9.1991 on the ground that respondent no. 1 being a divorced lady, the said application initially filed before Munsif Magistrate was not maintainable. 3. Respondent no. 1, thereafter, filed Original Suit No. 696 of 1980 claiming recovery of Nan Nafqa (maintenance) for the past eight months at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, her Mehar Rs. 32.50 and price of her a...

Lal Mani Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

KRISHNAMURARI, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - Respondents.This petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to refund Rs.35,712/- recovered from gratuity, Rs.12587/- recovered from encashment and Rs.2401/- being difference amount of encashment adjusted from the gratuity of the petitioner, total amounting to Rs.50,700/- deducted from the post retiral benefit of the petitioner.The sole question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether certain monetary benefits extended to the petitioner on account of revision of pay scale or grade during service can be recovered after his superannuation on the allegation that it was paid on account of some mistake or wrong calculation.Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Registrar, Allahabad and he retired on 30.6.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation.After retirement, the pension papers of the petiti...

Sazid Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012AIR(NOC)100

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. There is no need to issue notice to respondents no.2 and 3. Respondents no.2 and 3 filed an Application under section 125 Cr.P.C. being case no. 584 of 2010 Smt. Shamina and others Versus Sazid in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.1.2010 directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to his wife - respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month to his minor daughter - respondent no.3. Criminal Revision No.143 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Saharanpur. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.2 is a divorced Muslim lady and she is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from the petitioner. In A.I.R. 2010 S...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Krishi Export Com. Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

The respondent Krishi Export Com. Corporation Limited incorporated under the Companies Act and registered with the Registrar of companies, Kanpur as a non Banking financial company having its registered office at Krishi Export Plaza, Sigra, Varanasi was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 27.4.2007 under Section 45 MC of the RBI Act, 1934 and the official liquidator was directed to take over the assets of the company from the Ex-Directors. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.4.2007 is reproduced herein below:- “In the facts and circumstances, the Court find that the Reserve Bank of India has made out a case for winding up of the respondent company under Section 45 MC of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The respondent company is as such wound up and the official liquidator is appointed as liquidator of the company under Section 449 of the Companies Act. Let the order be notified to the Registrar of Companies in accordance with the Companies Act, 12956 and the Companies ...

State Bank of India Vs. Om NaraIn Agrawal and Others

Court: Allahabad

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India have been filed by State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "SBI") aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (for short 'DRT'), dismissing TA No. 11/2000, State Bank of India Vs. Om Narain Agrawal and 11/2002, Om Narain Agrawal Vs. Regional Officer, State Bank of India and another and the Appellate order dated 04.10.2007 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (for short 'DRAT') dismissing two Appeals no. R167/ 02 and R465/ 04 filed by SBI.2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under.3. It is alleged that respondent no.1 Om Narain Agrawal s/o Late Shanti Swaroop Agrawal, resident of Seth Kali Charan Road, Shahjahanpur opened a current account no. 2870 on 03.09.1991 at Kashi Nath Seth Bank Ltd (hereinafter refer to as 'KNSB') having its registered office at Kali Charan Road and central office at Bahadur Ganj Shah...

Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal Vs. Smt. Veena Agarwal

Court: Allahabad

1. Marriages- be it for love or arranged-are demanding as well as fragile institution. It takes patience, effort, and faith to preserve them. Yet, they do fail. And if that happens then 'are the defaulters entitled to take advantage of their own fault in divorce proceeding'- is the main question involved in this appeal. THE FACTS 2. Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal (the Appellant) and Smt. Dr. Veena Agarwal (the Respondent) are allopathic doctors. They knew each others from the school days. They went to the same medical college, fell in love, and married on 17.1.1967, while completing their studies. 3. A son was born to them in June, 1970 but he died young within a few of days of his birth. A daughter was born on 21.12.1971. At present, she is married. 4. The Respondent was operated twice in 1973 and 1984 before the proceeding started and for the third time in 1988 during the proceeding. 5. Initially, the relations between the parties were happy. However, they started deterior...

Kishnu and Others Vs. Sheesh Pal and Others

Court: Allahabad

First writ petition Gaon sabha passed a resolution on 26.06.1983 proposing to allot different parts of gaon sabha plot in favour of petitioners who are 10 in numbers (separate portion to each petitioner). S.D.O. approved the allotment on 30.07.1983. Application for cancellation of pattas was filed on 21.06.1989 by respondents 1 and 2 Sheesh Pal and Kanwar Pal. The matter was registered as case no.19 of 1988-89 on the file of Additional Collector (F and R) Ghaziabad under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. In the case an order was passed on 3.7.1990 directing that the case would be treated to be suo moto proceeding. The land had been allotted by the Pradan in favour of his near relations i.e. father, son nephew grand son and real sister and brother in law. This fact was reported by the Tehsildar in his report dated 11.09.1989 according to which father of the Pradhan who was opposite party no.3 in the case was also already having 4 bigha, 6 biswa land. Opposite party no.4 was husband of...

U.P. Forest Corporation, Garhwal Region and Others Vs. P.O., Labour Co ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2011(5)LLN536

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri S. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in each writ petition and Sri S.P. Giri and H.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the workmen respondents in the writ petitions. Respondent No.2 in each writ petition was engaged as Scaler on daily wage basis. Their duties were to weigh the woods and help in its selling etc. Each workman was engaged in Muzaffarnagar Logging Division of petitioner U.P. Forest Corporation. According to the petitioner after amendment of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, a large area of forest in U.P. was declared as national park and sanctuary and felling of the trees was banned and entry into the said area was completely banned which resulted in drastic reduction in the quantum of work-load of the petitioner, which was almost 50%. Accordingly, the corporation decided to disengage the daily labours/ daily wagers. In anticipation of such move 427 workers filed Writ Petition No.4209 ...

Deepa Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1.List revised. None appeared. I have perused the record. 2.Petitioner was working as Seasonal Collection Peon. He was made substantive on 29.11.1996 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007. The case of the petitioner is that service rendered by him as seasonal Collection Amin since 20.11.1981 should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Reliance is placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Board of Revenue and ors Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay 2006 (1) ESC 611. 3.In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. The service rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon does not qualify for pension. No provision has been shown in this regard. In Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra), the Division Bench has recorded a clear and categorical finding rejecting the contention of State Government that incumbent was working as Seasonal Collection Peon and on the contrary this Court held that he was actu...