Allahabad Court August 2012 Judgments
Sharad Kumar Singh Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mishra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Anil Kumar Sharma, J. 1. THIS is a claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT/Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Varanasi vide award dated 28.10.1997 in MAC Case No. 92 of 1995, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,12,800/- along with pendent elite interest @12% per annum have been awarded on account of the death of Narendra Pratap Singh in the motor accident. 2. IT appears that on 10.12.1994 at 2.30 p.m. when deceased Narendra Pratap Singh was returning home in Metador no. UP 5642 and reached near culvert of village Udaypur, the driver of bus no. UP 65-E/6942 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed with the aforesaid Metador, injuring him and he succumbed to the injuries. The report of the accident was made to the police the same day and case u/s 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC against drivers of both the vehicles was registered. The claimants alleged that the deceased was employed as lecturer in Cutting Memorial Inter College, Varanasi and was drawing monthly salary of R...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Vivekan and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1. THE petitioner claims itself to be a Primary School meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe students and has prayed for the extension of the benefit of grant-in-aid and the non- consideration of its application for the same in view of the Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard. 2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that at least more than 200 institutions had been extended the said benefit whereas the petitioner-institution has not been considered for the extension of such grant-in-aid. Learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the latest Government Order dated 23.5.2012 which is extracted herein under:- HINDI The policy to extend such benefits has been withdrawn by the State Government. In the aforesaid circumstances, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Mathur Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Meerut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1. THE appellant-assessee retired serving as a Judge of the Allahabad High court. In this Income Tax Appeal he is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench; SMC-VI, New Delhi in ITA No.1263/Del/2003, for the assessment year 1998-99, dated 10th June, 2004 dismissing the appeal of the assessee with the findings that the 'dearness relief' is covered within the expression, 'any payment received from a former employer by the assessee', and would be included in the definition of, 'profits in lieu of salary', to be taxed under Section 17 (3) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. WE have heard Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Amitabh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.K. Upadhyaya appears for the respondents. The appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law as follows:- "(A) Whether the receipt of the amount of dearness relief Rs.53,640/- to the appellant, a pensioner (retired High Court Judge), in the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Yadav Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. Affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. Considering the nature of the order that is being passed, I do not consider it necessary to call for counter affidavit, particularly, when the relevant material is already on record. Learned A.G.A. also does not pray for time to file counter affidavit, as the same would only cause delay in the proceedings. 2. By this revision, the revisionist, who is the informant and the father of the deceased (Vibha), has challenged the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chandauli in S.T. No.112 of 2009, whereby the application of the revisionist, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to add Madhulika as an accused, so as to face trial along with other accused persons, has been rejected. The facts, in brief, are that the daughter of the revisionist, namely, Vibha was married to Vishwas Mohan. The marriage took place on 18...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Kesarwani for the respondent no. 1. 2. THE petitioners have come up assailing the rejection of their forms for admission in B.Ed. Programme of the Indira Gandhi National Open University. The candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria of teaching experience of two years, inasmuch as, all the petitioners have a teaching experience of a Degree College and not of a Secondary or a Higher Secondary School. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are in possession of a higher teaching experience and therefore the same should not be made a ground for rejection in view of the provisions contained in the brochure. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the eligibility criteria on which the present dispute has arisen is extracted herein under:- "Eligibility. ii) Two years' full time teaching experience on temporary/permanent basis a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. Addl District Judge Barabanki
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 15.10.2009 passed by O.P. No. 1 in Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 2009 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and also order dated 18.07.2009 passed by O.P. No. 2 in Regular Suit No. 1021 of 2008 rejecting the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandate against O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 for restraining them from disposing of or alienating share of the petitioner in the ancestral land and from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over his share during the pendency of the suit. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki contending that defendant No. 1 Sri Ram is his father who is aged about 82 years and due to old age he has lost the capacity of understanding and cannot look after his interest. T...
Tag this Judgment!Gudiya Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Gudiya in case crime no.1349 of 2010, under Sections 304B, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kolhuai, District Maharjganj, with a prayer that she may be admitted to bail during the pendency of trial. 2. THE prosecution case in a nutshell is that, on 24.9.2010 at about 11:00 a.m., a first information report was lodged by the mother of the deceased, that the marriage of her daughter, Mamta had solemnized with Ram Milan five years prior to the incident. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given, but her in-laws were not satisfied and they were constantly demanding additional dowry, and on account of non fulfillment thereof, she had been tortured mentally and physically both and had been threatened for dire consequences. On 1.9.2010, her daughter was done to death by pouring kerosene ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Birla Aircon Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. HEARD Sri Chetan Chatterjee and Sri Mayank Agrawal for the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Mishra appearing for respondents No.5 and 6 and Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By this writ petition, the petitioner, a partnership concern, has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to remove the seal at the factory premises of the petitioner (149, Opposite Old Delhi Chungi, Delhi Road, Meerut) and further to compensate the petitioner. 2. BRIEF facts of the case, which emerge from the pleadings of the parties, are; the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and engaged in manufacturing and export of Water Cooler, Water Cooler Kit, Refrigerating material, Room Cooler and Sheet Metal...
Tag this Judgment!Rubi Singh Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. THIS case involves with the interpretation of explanation of sub-section (3) of Section 15 {Section 15(3)} of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (the Act). 2. THE basic question is, in case there was a stay order from a competent court against the motion of no confidence, then what period is to be excluded in computing the period of 30 days mentioned in section 15(3)(i) of the Act. Smt. Rubi Singh (the Petitioner) was elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Barsathi, Jaunpur (the Kshettra Panchayat). She took oath of Pramukh and assumed charge on 18.3.2010. The number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat is 89. Out of these elected 89 members, 58 members gave a notice in writing to the Collector, Jaunpur (the Collector) on 18.6.2012 to convene a meeting to consider motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. The notice was accompanied with the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. 3. THE Collector issued a notice on 19.6.20...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. THE petitioner claims himself to be a research scholar of the respondent University. He has come up questioning the correctness of the provisions relating to the maximum age limit prescribed for research scholars for contesting Union Elections in the Government Order dated 21st March, 2012 on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the view expressed by the apex court in the judgment dated 8.12.2011 in the case of University of Kerala Vs. Council, Principals', Colleges, Kerala and others. A copy of the said judgment is annexure 8 to the writ petition. Sri O.P. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao contends that the State Government without taking notice of the aforesaid judgment has fixed the maximum age limit as 28 years whereas the apex court had accepted the suggestion of a maximum age of 30 years. In the opinion of the court, this is a matter of policy decision and if the apex court decision was not brought ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »