Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All53
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. These appeals arise from the dismissal of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's removal from railway service as void and/or other connected reliefs, namely, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realising the sum of Rs. 10,510.21 Paise from the plaintiff by deducting the same from the Provident Fund dues payable to him, a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 15 months' pay by way of gratuity permissible under the rules on reaching the age of superannuation on 12-5-1971 and any other appropriate relief. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by theAddl. District Judge, Bareilly and the order dated 6-8-1970 passed by the defendant directing recovery of Rupees 10,510.21 Paise from the plaintiff was set aside. The rest of the decree was maintained. In these circumstances both parties have filed the present appeals in this court. 2. The basic facts of the case are not in disput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All73
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal under Order 43, R, 1, C.P.C. and is directed against the order dated 2-2-1977 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad on an application made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for removal of the appellant No, 1 from the post of Receiver to which he had been appointed by an order of the High Court.2. The facts leading to the impugned order may be briefly stated. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Suit No. 55 of 1971 for possession and mesne profits of the property in suit, consisting of bungalow No. 29/30 Kanpur Road. It was stated in the plaint that the said property belonged to Smt. Mahmood Jahan Begum, sister of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, that Smt. Mahmood Jahan Begum died on 29-3-1968 leaving behind the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as her heirs and they inherited the said property on the death of Smt. Mahmood Jahan Begum. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All68
B. N. Sapru, J. 1. The petitionerswere operators of stage carriages on (i) Jaunpur-Minhajpur, fii) Jaunpur-Saidpur via Kirakat, (iii) Jaunpur-Kirakat, (iv) Jaunpur-Ghazipur via Kirakat, Aurihar and Sadipur and (v) Jaunpur-Dhobi via 'Kirakat routes. They held valid permits to operate their stage carriages over these routes. 2. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 26th August. 1961. Certain objections challenging the scheme under Section 68-C of the Act were filed. The scheme was however, approved and was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 2-6-1973. Consequential orders under Section 68-F (2) (b) cancelling the petitioners' permits were made. 3. The approved scheme prepared under Section 68-D was challenged in writ no. 6734 of 1973. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court by its judgment D/- 21-12-1973. The Court quashed the notification dated 18th August, 19-61 and the order of respondent No. 2 viz., the Joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All323
..... . 56. this writ petition came up for hearing before hon'ble section n. dwivedi, j. as in his opinion, one of the questions involved relating to the acquisition of rights of bhumidhar by respondents 4 to 9 was a question of general importance, therefore, he referred the same for consideration of a larger bench. the question referred ..... 9 were actually ejected by the landlords. even if they had been ejected after only one year and they might not have been in a position to claim the acquisition of hereditary rights and subsequently sirdari rights on the date of vesting, still, in my opinion, the maintainability of their suits under section 202 against the petitioners ..... were not concerned with the question whether the re-instated persons belong-ed to the category of tenants or of trespassers. in the facts of tine instant case, acquisition of tenancy rights as hereditary tenants is claimed on the ground of possession for more than two years from, the date of trespass upto the date of ejectment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1979All93
..... the bringing into or taking out of india of any goods (including coins, currency, whether indian or foreign and foreign exchange) or the dealing in such goods by way of acquisition or otherwise; (ff) that the applicant has not been detained or ordered to be detained under the provisions of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act ..... restricts the bringing into or taking out of india of any goods (includingcoins, currency, whether indian or foreign, and foreign exchange) or the dealing in such goods by way of acquisition or otherwise; or (iv) the applicant does not fulfil the prescribed conditions. (c) every order granting or rejecting an application for the issue or renewal of a licence shall be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(All)131; [1980]123ITR911(All); [1980]4TAXMAN1(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the question referred for opinion is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction of penalty of Rs. 50,651 in assessment year 1967-68 and Rs. 67,801 in assessment year 1968-69 '2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cloth. It follows the calendar year as its year of account. During the years under consideration, the assessee was recognised as a registered user of trade mark No. 100387 (Sanforized) of M/s. Cluett Peabody & Company by the Government of India, vide Trade Mark Registry letter No. P.R. (RU-Sanforized)/2400 dated 26th November, 1962. One of the conditions laid down for the use of the aforesaid trade mark was the export of a certain percentage of sanforized fabrics manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)IILLJ159All
Yashodanandan, J.1. The Indian Explosives Limited is a public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business or manufacture and sale of explosives and fertilisers. The petitioner before us is its Fertilizer Division having its factory at Panki, Kanpur. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash and or set aside the Reference Order made by respondent No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 6th September, 1977, and the order of respondent No 2, the Industrial Tribunal III, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, dated 18th December, 1978 disposing of certain issues framed as a consequence of the written statement filed by the petitioner raising certain preliminary objections.2. The material facts on the basis of which this petition is based are that disciplinary proceedings were commenced by the petitioner against 16 of its workmen, 11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1984All277
..... accident or giving compensation to the dependants of a deceased in the event of an accident taking place. section 82-a has prescribed certain requirements as preliminary to the acquisition of benefit conferred by the statute, and such prescriptions are mandatory for getting its advantage.31. in edwards ramia ltd. v. african woods ltd. (1960-1 all ..... , ticket or permission, is liable to be removed or to be punished, the reason in my opinion, being that he is a trespasser and not a passenger. the term 'passenger' dying as a result of an accident within the meaning of section 82-a of the act must, therefore, relate to a person who had been travelling ..... one reason or the other, their dependants' claim for compensation was likely to fail. some other members asked about the entitlement of the dependants of the ticketless passengers to get compensation. the law minister did not agree that any provision for the dependants of ticketless travellers to get compensation should be made in the act. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1(1984)ACC211
..... accident or giving compensation to the dependants of a deceased in the event of an accident taking place. section 82-a has prescribed certain requirements as preliminary to the acquisition of benefit conferred by the statute, and such prescriptions are mandatory for getting its advantage.31. in edwards ramia ltd. v. african woods ltd. 1960 1 all ..... pass, ticket or permission, is liable to be removed or to be punished, the reason in my opinion, being that he is a trespasser and not a passenger. the term 'passenger' dying as a result of an accident within the meaning of section 82-a of the act must, therefore, relate to a person who had been travelling ..... one reason or the other, their dependants' claim for compensation was likely to fail. some other members asked about the entitlement of the dependants of the ticketless passengers to get compensation. the law minister did not agree that any provision for the dependants of ticketless travellers to get compensation should be made in the act. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1990All65
ORDERG. D. Dube, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Agra. The lower Court has decreed the suit of the respondents for specific performance of the contract. The defendant No. 1 has been directed to execute a sale-deed within a period of three months after receiving the amount ofsale consideration and rent up to 31st October, 1974-75 as is disclosed in the compromise entered into between the parties. The defendant No. 1 was further directed to obtain permission from the District Magistrate, if necessary. It was ordered that in case defendant No. 1 failed to comply the decree, then the sale-deed would be executed through Court at the cost of the appellant. It has also been declared that after 31st October, 1975, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 are not required to pay rent or interest to defendant No. 1.2. It is an admitted case between the parties that the house in dispute situated at Agra belonged to the pl...
Tag this Judgment!