Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC1020
Shiv Shanker, J.1. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6742 of 2006 (Suresh Kumar Modi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6950 of 2006 (Mr. Amit Modi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) have been filed regarding one criminal case, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the writ petitions it has been prayed that issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the F.I.R.) dated 10th May, 2006 lodged against the petitioner/s at Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad as Case Crime No. 166 of 2006, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C.2. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Udai Chandani and Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner's and learned A.G.A. as well as the Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri B.C. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and peru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All42; [1963(6)FLR70]
Dwivedi, J. 1. These six petitioners proceed on similar facts and raise similar questions of law; accordingly they are being decided by a single judgment.2. In all these petitions the petitioners challenge the legality of the acquisition by the State Government of certain agricultural plots situate in the village Begambad in the Tahsil of Ghaziabad in the district of Meerut, of which they are the tenure holders. By the notification dated January 27, 1961, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the State Government notified for general information that those plots were needed for a public purpose, that is to say the construction of an 'Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital at Modinagar.' The notification is coupled with an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the said act would not apply. This notification was followed by another notification of the State Government under Section 6 of the Act, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]144TAXMAN496(All)
R.K. Agarwal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the assessee's claim representing sales tax liability relating to earlier years were an allowable deduction in the years under consideration, viz,, assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee's claim for a sum of Rs. 82,077 as liability raised against him by an order of the Regional Director, E.S.I. by his order dated 29-10-1975 for the years other than the assessment year 1976-77?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1976-77 (sic) to 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a private limited c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR521]
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by concerned Civil Judge, which is the 'Court' as per The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. There is a provision of appeal under Section 82 of the said Act which is as follows:82. Appeal- (1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court,(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law.(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.(4) The provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the (Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)), shall apply to appeals under this section.2. From the plain reading of the provision it appears to us that the appeal shall lie to the High Court if it involves any substantial question of law. According to the appellant, the substantial question of law is that the cooperative society is not lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1676; [2007(115)FLR959]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff was working as a cashier and committed a misconduct on account of which a chargesheet was issued on the basis of which a domestic enquiry was initiated in which the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the plaintiff. Based on the said report, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, an order dated 25.3.1970 was passed for the removal of the plaintiff from the service of the Corporation. It transpires that the appellate authority also affirmed the order of removal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration praying that a decree for declaration be issued holding that the order of the removal passed by the Regional Director, as affirmed by the appellate order, was illegal and malafide and that the plaintiff continued to be in the service with full back wages. The plaintiff in the alternative also prayed for a decree for damages for wrongful removal from the services. The defendant resisted the suit a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(2007)ACC434; 2007ACJ370
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the employee at Kanpur on 23.11.83 sustained an employment injury in his left eye resulting in diminution of vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent worker during the hours of his employment, suffered an injury in his left eye. The eye surgeon to whom the worker was referred, examined his eye in L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur (Government Hospital) found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the left eye as a result of that injury. Respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability in his left eye due to that injury in consequence whereof, there was also no loss of his earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker challenged this decision of the Board by filing the appeal as provided in Section 54A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC177
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the respondent-employee at Kanpur, sustained a blunt injury in his right eye resulting in diminution of the vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-worker who was referred to an Eye Surgeon at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur on examination of his eyes (Government Hospital) had found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the right eye as a result of that injury. The respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability due to the aforesaid injury and in consequence whereof, no loss of earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker, challenged the aforesaid decision of the Board by filing an appeal as provided in Section 54A of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the E.S.I. Court reversed the view of the Medical Board, placing reliance on the repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All136
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the occupier of a factory in Saharanpur which is engaged in manufacture of cloth. He was called upon by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 12,484 as a special contribution payable by an employer under Chap. VA of the Employees' State Insurance Act in respect of a period extending from 1st April 1953 to 31st March, 1955.The petitioner disputed his liability for payment of this sum or any part of it, and as a consequence of his refusal to pay steps are now being taken against him for recovery of the amount claimed as though it were an arrear of land revenue, and he is threatened with prosecution under Section 85 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the demand is illegal, and the principal relief which he seeks by this petition is the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to recover from him any contribution under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All427; [1963(7)FLR443]
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Central Act 34 of 1948), has come up before us as a result of an order passedby a learned single Judge of this Court directing the appeal to be placed before a Division Bench.2. The appellant, Shyama Devi, laid a claim under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the assertion that she was the widow of one Badri Prasad Srivas-tava, who was an insured employee in Messrs. Atherton West & Co. Ltd., Kanpur, and that Badri Prasad Srivastava died as a result of personal injury caused by accident on the 10th September, 1954, shortly after midday, whilst he was serving as a coolie employed in Messrs. Atherton West & Co. Ltd.; According to the claim set forward by the appellant, she was also the guardian of Vidyawati, who was the only child left by the deceased.3. The claim was contested. It was admitted that Badri Prasad Srivastava was an insured employee in Me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ521All
Rajesh Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act against the order dated April 27, 1993 passed by Judge Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur in Appeal No. 245 of 1992.2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Lakhan Lal opposite party suffered an injury during the course of his employment on July 31, 1991 who was admittedly insured person for the purposes of the Act. It is admitted that Sri Lakhan Lal suffered head injury when he was disengaging threads of loom when his head came in contact with the over head bar of the loom. He was referred to Medical Board. Sri Lakhan Lal was examined by E.S.I. doctor on May 15, 1992 and it was found that he was suffering from manic depression, psychosis depression, post concusation syndrome followed by head injury. It appears that E.S.I. Doctor referred injured person for examination by Dr. Navneet Kumar Assistant Professor Neurology, Kanpur. Dr. Navneet Kumar in his report which is paper No. 6/8 has opined that...
Tag this Judgment!