Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: old Court: allahabad Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 129 results (0.464 seconds)

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. U.B. Engineering Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...

Kamal Ji Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2010(3)AWC2524

Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Yash Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.9.2009, passed by the respondent No. 2;(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.9.2009 to the extent Rs. 3,000 as weekly advance entertainment tax has been ordered to be paid;(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to compel to the petitioners to pay weekly advance entertainment tax of Rs. 3,000 and the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be directed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,500 as weekly advance entertainment tax and the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be further directed not to interfere in the running of the temporary video cinema halls of the petitioners situate in quasba Ch...

Madan Mohan Vs. Arun Shourie and 11 ors.

Court : Allahabad

Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Instant election petition has been filed challenging the result of biennial election of Rajya Sabha/Council of State, which was declared on 26.6.2004.The present Election petition was filed on 13.07.2004. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for nomination of Bench and in turn thereof, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra was nominated. Subsequently, Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Srivastava was nominated and thereafter Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shri Narayan Shukla was nominated to deal with the matter but later on His Lordship released the case and in turn this Bench has been nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. At the very threshold of arguments, Shri S.N. Shukla learned Counsel for the election petitioner had not pressed the relief with regard to the validity/vires of amended provision contained in Section 3 of the Representation of Peoples Act, hence, question with regard to validity of amended Section 3 of the Representation of Peoples A...

Aboo Hurera and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Narayan Shukla, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3.2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31st of December, 2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby he has set aside the order dated 19th of February, 2007, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, inter alia on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction as against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was interlocutory in nature the revision was not maintainable. By means of order dated 19th of February, 2007, the Settlement Officer Consolidation by setting aside the order dated 10th of December, 1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the case to pass a fresh order on merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.3. Briefly, the case set up by the petitioners is that the land of Khata No. 90, situated a...

Shree Ram Gupta Vs. Shafiquer Rahman and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2010(10)AWC2097

Rajes Kumar, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court dated 3.10.2009 by which he has rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit.2. The respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 58 of 2004 for ejectment and arrears of rent in which the petitioner was defendant No. 1. The petitioner filed the written statement and contested the case. It appears that evidence of both the parties have been closed on 10.7.2007 and 26.7.2007 was fixed for hearing. Further an application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. was moved, which has not been replied by the defendants. On 25.1.2008 the petitioner-defendant moved an application seeking permission to deposit rent of Rs. 20,000/-, which has been allowed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter a date was fixed for disposal of the application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. On 2.4.2008, defendant No. 2 Shree Kant Gupta, filed amendment application which has been rejected on 7.8.2008. Shree Kant Gu...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2010(3)AWC2424

Ram Autar Singh, J.1. These first appeals have arisen out of judgments and awards dated 29.3.2008 passed by Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar, (hereinafter 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 1998, M.A.C.P. Nos. 116 and 117 of 1999, M.A.C.P. No. 287 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 421 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 422 of 1998. M.A.C.P. No. 423 of 1998, M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 1999 and M.A.C.P. No. 476 of 1999 (hereinafter 'claim petition' respectively.2. In F.A.F.O. No. 166 of 2009 claimants Ashok Kumar and Master Ashu claiming themselves to be husband and son of deceased Smt. Sunita instituted M.A.C.P. No. 265 of 1998 with prayer to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 10,32,000 as compensation alongwith interest under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'Act'). The learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 15,000 per month as notional income of Smt. Sunita aged about 38 years applying multiplier according to Second Schedule to Sec...

Shiv Dayal and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sarvasri Kunal Ravi Singh, Ramesh Singh and R.S. Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Sarvasri O.P. Misra and Pradeep Chandra.2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders passed by the three Consolidation authorities, that is, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, rendered on 24.12.1973, disposing of the Revision, order of the Settlement Officer, Kanpur, dated 9.7.1973, dismissing the Appeal of the petitioners and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur, dated 21.4.1973, allowing the Suit preferred by Rajendra etc. sons of Kanhaiya Lal. All the three Consolidation courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact allowing claim put-froth by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, sons of Kanhaiya Lala.3. In the present case, initially the proceedings were initiated ...

Gufran Ahmad and anr Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

1. These two bail applications have been filed relating to the same case crime no. 34 of 2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 and 120-B IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Dhoomanganj, district Allahabad, hence are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the applicant Gufran Ahmad and Mr. Ravindra Sharma for the applicant Muslim @ Guddu, Mr. Mewa Lal Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. According to the allegations made in the FIR on 25.1.2005 at about 3.00 PM, the complainant's husband Raju Pal (an MLA) and his associates Devi Lal Pall and Sandeep Yadav were killed by seven-eight persons. Three persons, namely, Om Prakash, Saifulla and Smt. Rukhsana sustained gun shot injuries. It is alleged in the FIR that Mr. Atiq Ahmad, the then Member of Parliament, belonging to the Samajwadi Party, managed the murder of the complainant's husband with the help of 7-8 persons ...

Devi Saran Mishra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

V.K. Shukla, J.1. In the present writ petition, subject matter of challenge is the order passed in summary court martial proceeding, wherein sentence has been awarded to the petitioner to serve rigorous imprisonment for six months and to be dismissed from service. Against the said order in question, petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed on 18.05.1989 by mentioning that the same lacks substance. At the said juncture present writ petition has been filed before this Court on 07.03.1990.2. On 07.12.2003 in the absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner, present writ petition was dismissed, and thereafter an application was moved for recall the said order. Said application has been allowed on 09.12.2009, and thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up.3. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Sunit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that this Court should take note of the change in the legal provision as has been introduced under ...

Ram Pher and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri T.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Sri G.S. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record.2. Under challenge is an order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad on 10.3.2010, disposing of the revision preferred under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This order has been passed in furtherance of directions and observations contained in a judgment dated 17.2.09 rendered by this Court in a revision Ram Pyare v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. preferred in the year 1992. The original consolidation dispute arose in the year 1988 and as such it requires expeditious adjudication by this Court as more than about 22 years have gone. The land chaks in the concerned village have not yet been settled even after several years of conclusion of consolidation proceedings in the village.4. It emerges from ...