Allahabad Court May 2015 Judgments
Indra Pal Singh and Another Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2015
Rajes Kumar, J. Indra Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to the "appellant no.1") and Smt. Neerja Raghuvanshi (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant no.2") are the employee of Indian Telephone Industries, Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The appellant were appointed on the post of Wiring and Wrapping in Category "C" and "B" respectively at Mankapur Unit, State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant no.1 claims to be officer bearer of Association of the employees long back in 1993. The appellants alleged that in order to victimize them, they were transferred by order dated 13.02.1998 and posted at Delhi in the Customer Care Organization, I.T.I. Limited Zone, Repair Centre (North), Laxmi Nagar. Thereafter, by a temporary transfer they were sent to Naini Unit on 08.10.1998. They were relieved by order dated 06.05.1999 to report at Mankapur Unit as aforesaid transfer at Naini Unit was for six months. However, in the meantime, the period of six months was exte...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Pur Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. The Labour Court Gorakhpur an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2015
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Consequent upon a reference made to it, under section 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, labour court has found that non-engagement of respondent-workman at the start of crushing season 1980-81 w.e.f. 1.12.1980 was illegal and unjustified, and as such, workman has been held entitled to reinstatement along with entire back wages, and reference has been answered accordingly. Thus aggrieved with the award dated 27.2.1985, in adjudication case no.15 of 1982, petitioner-employer has filed present writ petition. 2. Petitioner-employer M/s Pratappur Sugar Pvt. Ltd. is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, which is running a sugar mill at Pratappur, District Deoria. During pendency of this writ petition, name of petitioner company has been changed to Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Mill Industries Ltd., Sugar Unit Pratappur, Deoria, and an amendment in the array of parties has also been allowed. 3. For running of the sugar mill, petitioner-employe...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-2015
1. Heard Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the courts below, whereby petitioner has been summoned for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "the Act") in Complaint Case no. 1409 of 2014 pending before the A.C.J.M (Court no.2), Varanasi. 3. A complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner on 19.10.2010 alleging that a cheque dated 4.5.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,81,730/- was issued by petitioner in favour of respondent no.2, which he deposited in his account at Varanasi on 24.7.2010, was reported to be unpaid /dishonoured on 26.7.2014, but at the request of the petitioner, the said cheque was again presented by respondent no.2 to his banker on 4.10.2010, and again the same was reported to be unpaid/ dishonoured on 5.10.2010. It is alleged that a registered notice da...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager Vs. Deepali ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2015
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2008, awarding a compensation of Rs.40,09,133/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 06.02.2007 till payment, failing which, the insurance company has been directed to pay penal interest @ 9% per annum. The facts, in short, are that the deceased, aged about 39 years, who was a Textile Engineer and posted as Marketing Manager in Reliance Industries Ltd. At Gurgaon, Haryana, was travelling in a Hyundai Santro Car on 25.06.2005 bearing Registration no.UP-58/A-3600. The car was being driven by the driver Sarveshwar Tripathi and one employee of his company, namely, Sharad Nigam was also travelling alongwith him in the said car. At about 11:30 p.m., when the car was on Faizabad-Barabanki road at village Udhauli near Hotmix plant, a fallen tree was obstructing the road and driver of the car moved towards right on a narrow strip of the road in a rash and negligent man...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Sharma Vs. Central Bank of India, Nav Yug Market
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2015
Against the possession notice dated 2.3.2015 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that he had taken a loan and committed a default as a result of which a notice under Section 13(2) was issued to which the petitioner responded and paid the defaulted amount in spite of which the respondent bank has issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Sri S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent bank was directed to receive instructions who has informed that as on date there is no defaulted amount to be paid by the petitioner and that the entire defaulted amount has already been cleared by the petitioner. Section 13(2) of the Act provides that if a borrower makes a default in the repayment of the secured debt, the secured creditor can classified the debt of the borrower as a non ...
Tag this Judgment!Rita Bagga and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2015
Tarun Agarwala, J. The petitioners are carrying on the business of designed jewellery in the name and style of Umrrao Jewels which was subsequently changed to Aum Jewels. The petitioners were having business relationship with the respondent-Vijaya Bank since 2006. The petitioners applied for cash credit facility. The Bank vide its letter dated 31.01.2011 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 550.00 lakhs as cash credit facility for a period of one year, which was to be renewed on a year to year basis. While sanctioning the cash credit limit, the stocks of gold and diamond jewellery were hypothecated. A collateral security in the nature of half western portion of freehold residential/commercial property measuring 934.315 sq. yards situate at plot no.G/4, Civil Station, Allahabad having a market value of Rs. 698.91 lakhs was also given. It is alleged that after previous permission from the Bank, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.09.2011 was arrived at with Millan Developers for building a commerc...
Tag this Judgment!Raeesul Hasan and Another Vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Education an ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: May-14-2015
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The present reference to the Full Bench was made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 20 December 2006; the issue referred for adjudication being as follows: "Which date will be relevant for the purpose of determination of criteria of availability and eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer grade i.e. the date on which vacancy occurs to forward to the Selection Committee/Commission or the first day of year of the recruitment when the vacancy is notified for recruitment?" The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 established a Board for the selection of teachers in institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the introduction of the Bill in the State Legislature furnished the following rationale for the constitution of a statutory Board: "The appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Interme...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education and Others Vs. C/ ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: May-12-2015
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The present reference before the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a Division Bench dated 24 November 2014. The Division Bench noticed that there was a conflict between the decisions of the Division Benches in State of U P Vs Om Prakash Verma1 and Rajesh Yadav Vs Director of Education (Madhyamik), U P, Allahabad2. The Division Bench was of the view that the field was covered by a judgment of a Full Bench in Gopal Dubey Vs District Inspector of Schools3. However, the Division Bench thought it appropriate to refer the matter to the Full Bench since the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Rajesh Yadav (supra) had considered both the earlier decisions in Om Prakash Verma as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Gopal Dubey. Accordingly, the following questions of law have been referred for decision: (1) Whether in the absence of any sanctioned post, can a direction in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2015
Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, the learned A.G.A, and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned Amicus Curiae. 1. This appeal styled as "Criminal Appeal" is preferred under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short ''the Act'), assailing the order dated 17.3.2015 in Criminal Appeal no. 19 of 2015 passed by District Judge, Agra, whereby the order of the Adjudicating Officer dated 19.2.2015 imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs stands reduced to 50%, as a pre conditional deposit for admission of the appeal. 2. The core issue which falls for consideration is as to the nature of adjudication proceedings contemplated under Chapter X of the Act i.e, whether such proceedings are civil or criminal in nature as an answer on the said issue would have a bearing on the cognizability of this appeal before this bench on the criminal side of the jurisdiction. 3. The appellant claims to be a petty food vendor engaged in...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharmendra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2015
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition arises out of an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, the question arose as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009 Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others wherein it has been held that the judicial orders of Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam (supra) submits that a distinction has been carved out between the Civil Court and a Tribunal. Mere reading of paragraph 10, 11 and 21 of the said pronouncement makes it clear that the orders of Civil Court stand on a differe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »