Court : Allahabad
1. The petitioner is the guarantor and father of respondent nos. 5 and 6 who took a cash credit limit of rupees seventy five lacs in a partnership firm known as S.R. Tractors in 2012 in which they were the partners. The petitioner stood guarantee for the cash credit limit by depositing the title deeds of his residential house no. 5/298A, Lohia Nagar Banna Devi, G.T. Road, Aligarh. It transpires that the accounts of respondent nos. 5 and 6 became NPA on 31.5.2014 pursuant to which a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 2.6.2014 was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 44.92 lacs. Thereafter, symbolic possession under Section 13(4) was also taken on 29.8.2014. It further transpires that the respondent bank filed an application dated 30.10.2014 before the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act praying for actual physical delivery of possession. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 3 April 2015. By the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge has set aside an order dated 31 December 2008 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, withdrawing recovery certificates that were issued under the U P Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. The first respondent which was engaged in the manufacturing of blended yarn and fabrics with a factory at Kanpur, declared a lock out on 15 May 1989. On 17 May 1989, the State Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the U P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, banning the lock out. On 19 December 1990, a further notification was issued by the State Government imposing a permanent ban. On 21 June 1991, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur issued twenty two recovery certificates under Section 3 of the Act for the alleged recovery of wages due and outstanding to the workmen. The appellant filed a writ petition challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1.Petitioner-L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd., a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act has filed this writ petition for quashing of the notice dated 28.03.2013 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NOIDA for the Assessment Year 2006-07 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1961') wherein it has been stated that the officer has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax at the hands of the assessee for the year 2006-07 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, 1961 in respect of which the assessee was assessable. The assessee was called upon to submit the return of the income within 30 days for which he is assessable in the said year. The notice has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the present petition. The reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 have been communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 28.03.2013 and it reads as follows: "It is seen th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.2.2015 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad in Case No.E.C.A. 70 of 2013, Rais Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others. Heard Shri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned judgment and order have been assailed on the grounds that (i) there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent no.2/owner of the vehicle; (ii) at the relevant time the deceased had no valid driving licence. He has been erroneously held to be a driver, which the law does not permit; (iii) accident, wherein the deceased died, not arose out of the use of the said vehicle and (iv) accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased, had no nexus with his duty as employee, therefore, the death is not in the course of the employment. Before appreciating these grounds, we would like briefly to place on record the facts of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 6 February 2015 allowing a writ petition filed by the first and second respondents. The writ petition was filed by the first and second respondents for the payment of an amount of Rs.2,45,360/- towards the balance of dues on account of gratuity payable in respect of the services of a deceased employee. Mani Ram was initially engaged as a Welfare Officer Grade-III on 3 June 1973 by Mahavir Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. The Mill was taken over under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 19711. After acquisition, the services of the employee were transferred under Section 16 of the Acquisition Act on the same terms and conditions on which he was engaged by the private mill which was acquired. Mani Ram retired on attaining the age of 60 years on 29 February 2008 and was paid an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19722. He filed a writ petition before this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri B. N. Singh for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri L. K. Dwivedi who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. The fifth respondent was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh from the Mirzapur Sadar-396 seat. The fifth respondent was tried for offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code arising out of Case Crime no. 929 of 1995 of Police Station Kotwali Katara, District Mirzapur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by a judgement and order dated 28 February, 2015 convicted the fifth respondent for offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment of three years and to a fine. The writ petition, which has been filed as a petition in the public interest, seeks a declaration that the fifth respondent stands disqualified as a member of the Legislative Assembly. A mandamus is soug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Aggrieved by an award of labour court, granting reinstatement in service alongwith continuity and all service benefits, petitioner employer has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Undisputed facts, giving rise to the dispute herein, are that respondent-workman got substantively appointed as Sub Station Attendant, on 7.7.1977 and worked as such w.e.f. 16.7.1977. His services were also confirmed. While working, as Sub Station Attendant, he absented from duty w.e.f. 1.2.1981. A letter was sent by employer on 21.4.1981, intimating absence w.e.f. 1.2.1981, and requiring his immediate joining, failing which, disciplinary action was to follow. Respondent-workman responded vide letter dated 2.5.1981, annexing medical certificate to show illness and sought leave w.e.f. 1.2.1981 to 1.6.1981. In response to such letter, Executive Engineer concerned directed workman to resume duty w.e.f. 1.6.1981 positively, otherwise, his services would be terminated afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] arises out of an order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (EC Act)/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur [the tribunal] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 297 of 2010 (Smt. Richa Khare v. Ankit Gupta and others) whereby the Tribunal has rejected the amendment application of the claimants-revisionists under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The essential facts are that late Sanjay Khare, husband of the revisionist no. 1 and father of the revisionist nos. 2 and 3, was a Government employee working on the post of Assistant Nazir (I) at District Court, Shahjahanpur. He met an accident on 25th September, 2008 with a truck bearing Registration No. U.P.27C-5624. He succumbed to his injuries on 30th September, 2008. The revisionists moved a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the Act] which was registered as Motor Accident ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Krishna Murari, J. 1. This FAFO filed by the appellant Insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.01.2015 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 19, Allahabad, in M.A.C. No. 770 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.9,23,140/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- was made by the claimant-respondents on the allegations that on 19.06.1997, Shri Jagnnath Yadav, predecessor-in-interest of the claimant-respondents was travelling from Phulpur to Allahabad by Commandar Jeep No. UP70 G 1039, and at about 9.30 p.m., when it reached near P.S. Tharwai, a Tata 407 Bus bearing no. UP70 B 9441, which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Commandar Jeep, in which Jagannath Yadav and other occupants received serious injuries and Jagnnath Yadav expire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The special appeal is from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19 December 2014 by which a writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed. The appellant was a Constable in the State Police. He was initially appointed on 1 July 1974 and continued to serve until 20 November 1996 when he was dismissed from service under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U P Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The dismissal was on the basis of a report dated 31 October 1996 finding that the appellant had been noticed to be under the influence of liquor on 23 September 2006 and to have misbehaved in that condition. Admittedly, no disciplinary enquiry was held. The appellant filed a writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6483 of 1999) challenging the order of dismissal. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25 August 2004 and the order of dismissal was set aside. There was a...
Tag this Judgment!