Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-09-1994
Reported in : 1996ACJ824
S.R. Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1980, rendered by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Saharanpur, thereby rejecting the claim petition No. 1 of 1979 preferred by the appellant in respect of accident which occurred on 25.7.1978 involving bus No. HYB 664 of Haryana Roadways. The claimant-appellant was employed as an Inspector in the E.S.I. Corporation, Saharanpur, at the time of the accident. The bus was being driven by driver Permanand.2. It would appear from a perusal of the record that at the time of accident, the front right tyre of the bus suddenly deflated resulting in the ill-fated bus deflecting and dashing against the tree on the roadside. The claimant, besides driver of the bus and the other co-passengers, sustained injuries in the accident which occurred due to the vehicle dashing against the tree. The appellant has sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-18-1994
Reported in : I(1995)ACC204; [1995(70)FLR405]; (1996)ILLJ482All
S.R. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 13, 1980 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur in Suit No. 10 of 1977 : Smt. Raj Kali Devi v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through the Regional Director, Employees, State Insurance Corporation and Anr. 2. The facts giving rise to the suit are not in dispute. Late Sri Hanuman Prasad the son of the respondent-applicant sustained employment injury on July 12, 1976 and died on the spot. The deceased was admittedly an 'insured' person within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in short the Act, and the respondent-applicant Smt. Raj Kali devi 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 2(6-A)(i) of the said Act being the widowed mother of the 'insured' person. Her claim for dependents' benefits under Section 52 of the Act read with the 1st Schedule was based on the ground that a divorce had taken place between her son, the 'insured' person, and his wife...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-04-1994
Reported in : 1995(78)ELT129(All)
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following reliefs have been prayed :-i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the demand for payment of warehousing charges amounting to Rs. 4,11,612.50 by the respondent in its letter No. CN/MNR/IMC/90-91/166, dt. 22-5-1990 (Annexure 17)ii. issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to deliver the goods of the petitioner warehoused under warrant of goods Book No., 00360 and S.I. No. 017984 to 017994 dated 23-10-1987,29-10-1987,26-10-1987,27-10-1987,28-10-1987,30-10-1987/12-11-1987 and 16-11-1987.iii. issue any other writ, direction or order which the petitioner may be found entitled to according to law andiv. award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is admittedly a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing of tin containers under the name and style of Tin Manufacturing Company of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-05-1994
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR610]; (1994)IILLJ1136All; (1994)2UPLBEC1041
1. This instant special appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 24, 1992 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition 7801 of 1990 (S/S).2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the special appeal are stated.Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, hereinafter called the respondent, preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging alleged oral termination of his service by the appellants on the ground that they have not done so in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent claimed that he is a workman as stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, that since June 12, 1989 the respondent had been working in the Life Insurance Corporation as a Clerk and he had been getting salary as such as a daily rated employee upto the month of June, 1990, that the respondent is getting salary from appellant No. 2, after getting applications from him. Some of the applications and vouchers had been attached as Annexures...
Tag this Judgment!