Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-21-2011
..... 13 supreme court cases 4777 competent authority vs. barangore jute factory and ors. in the aforesaid case, the acquisition of land was made under the national highways act, 1956. the apex court found that acquisition was not in accordance with law. however, to meet the ends of justice, it was held that additional compensation be paid to ..... square meter patwari 5891880 984220 570320 719676 557894 2832110 sakipur 1260380 397872 303492 753355.43 1454719.43 26600 ghori bachhera 5801734 907190.31 404729.06 1412878.21 242310.26 2967107.84 ..... use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. the said decision of the national commission has been referred to by this court in national insurance co. ltd. v. nitin khandelwal. another judgment of the apex court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is sulochana chandrakant galande vs. pune ..... correct the mistakes in planning nor provide any amenities even in future. residents of such unauthorized layouts are forever be condemned to a life of misery and discomfort. it is to avoid such haphazard, unhealthy development activities by greedy illegal colonisers and ignorant land-owners ..... 6, the corporation had transferred the same to private persons. respondent no.1 and other landowners may not be having any serious objection to the acquisition of their land for a public purpose and, therefore, some of them not only accepted the compensation, but also filed applications under section 18 of the act for determination .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-20-2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. We propose to dispose of the matter finally. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 1st May, 2008, passed by Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Varanasi and order dated 19th May, 2009, passed by Regional Manager, Kanpur (here-inafter referred to as 'Corporation'). By the order dated 1st May, 2008 the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation rejected the petitioner's claim under the insurance policy taken by Late Shahid Khan, husband of the petitioner. Subsequently order dated 19th May, 2009 was passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation rejecting the petitioner's representation, which was disposed of in pursuance of an earlier order of this Court dated 13th April, 2009 passed in writ petition no.63982 of 2008. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent-Bank. Undisputed facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under: 2. Husband of the petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank, died in a road accident on 26.10.2009 in harness leaving behind the petitioner and one minor daughter. Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 3.7.2010 which was rejected on 9.7.2010 on the ground that under the scheme enforced in Bank for compassionate appointment, there is a provision for making ex-gratia payment and since a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs has already been paid as ex-gratia, she was not liable to be given compassionate appointment. 3. Respondent-Bank has framed a scheme known as 'Revised Model Scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds and appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds'. The said scheme has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and two others aggrieved by the order dated 23 rd February, 2006 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner (Prescribed Authority) Azamgarh in the capacity as Workmen Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "Commissioner") deciding the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Workmen Compensation Case before. The petitioners contended that "Fire Department" and its employees are not within the purview of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "1923 Act" and the Fireman of U.P. Government Fire Department is not a "Workman". The commissioner has decided the two issues against petitioners.2. The Commissioner has held that employees of Fire Department are not members of Police Force in view of the definition of "workman" under Section 2(n)(ii) read with entry (xi) Schedule 2 of 1923 Act and a person employed in the service of Fire Brig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-04-2011
1. The writ petitioners have approached this Court in respect of the order dated 05.04.2010, whereby respondent no.1 had directed the petitioners to submit the list of officers/employees and the further reminder dated 17.04.2010, whereby the petitioners were informed that failing which action would be taken under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in response to these letters, on 26.04.2010, a reply was given by the Regional Officer stating that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Central Corporation created by an Act of Parliament and does not fall under the definition of Local Authority in the State. The further stand was that the Corporation is engaged in commercial services involving vital public services and deployment of their officers/employees for census will gravely hamper the business. The writ petitioners have further stated that without taking into consideration their reply and without application of mind, a directio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-11-2011
1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Kumar on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Akash Prasad holding brief of Sri Vinay Verma who put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 01.10.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority/Small Causes Court, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 20 of 2000 and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 1 in Rent Appeal 45 of 2008. 3. Controversy involved in the present case relates to the the House bearing municipal corporation no. 337/193 under the tenancy of the petitioner situated in Tapewali Gali Kazgain Poad Mansoor Nagar, Lucknow(hereinafter referred as premises in question). 4. In respect of same, an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been moved by the landlord-respondents. Accordingly, a P.A. Case no. 20 of 2000 registered before the respondent no. 2, allowed vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-21-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.10.1997 passed by District Registrar, Jalaun in an appeal under Section 72 of Registration Act 1908 Samar Singh vs. Vijai Singh. Through the impugned order 3 months and 24 days delay in filing appeal has been condoned. The sale deed was refused to be registered by the Sub Registrar through the order dated 12.2.1996. According to Samar Singh appellant respondent no.1 in this writ petition he got the information of the refusal order on 24.2.1996. There is no dispute that limitation of 30 days to file appeal under Section-72 of Registration Act starts from the date of knowledge. Appeal was filed on 18.6.1996. However, delay condonation application was filed on 16.12.1996. In the said application it was stated that appellant respondent no.1 remained ill from 27.2.1996 to 17.6.1996. This allegation of illness has been found to be correct by the District Registrar, Jalaun at Orai. 3. The main p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-13-2011
1. Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India in both the appeals. 2. These two special appeals have been filed against the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 23rd March, 2010, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37610 of 2008 (Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others), and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28833 of 2008 (Manish Dwivedi & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29166 of 2008 (Hashumuddin & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others) have been disposed of under a common judgment. The petitioners have been permitted to approach the competent authority of the Corporation by making suitable representations within time specified and the competent authority inturn has been directed to consider the same by means of a speaking orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-19-2011
1. Heard Sri B.C. Rai for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Dubey and Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, advocates for respondents 1 and 2 and Addl. Chief Standing Counsel Sri C.S. Singh for respondents no. 3 and 4. 2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to hear this case and decide finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) whereby the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'EE') has made final assessment order of Rs. 13,54,181/- and appellate order dated 10.6.2010 whereby the assessment has been modified to Rs. 4,81,976/- and consequential demand notice/bill issued by EE on 22.6.2010 raising a demand of Rs. 8,92,104/- i.e. the assessment as modified by the appellate authority and interest at the rate of 15 per cent to the tune of Rs. 4,10,128/- totaling to Rs. 8,92,1...
Tag this Judgment!