Court : Allahabad
This special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9 December 2014 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was appointed as a Bus Conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 20 March 1978. His services are governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (Regulations). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the issuance of a charge sheet on 6 July 2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet. His reply was not found satisfactory and a notice to show cause was issued to him on 15 December 2005, proposing to punish him for the loss stated to have been incurred by the Corporation in the amount of Rs 2,99,848/-. After considering the reply of the appellant and the report of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority found the appellant to be negligent in the performance of his duties, thereby causing a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The fifty two appellants had come up in writ jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge assailing an order dated 8.5.2014 of the third respondent who is the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. The third respondent had rejected the claim of the appellants seeking preference for appointment to Class-III posts/technical grade-II (T.G.-II), Fireman, Lineman etc. and an advertisement dated 6.9.2014 issued by the fourth respondent (Secretary, Vidhyut Sewa Ayog Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.) for not granting preference to the appellants in the vacancies offered. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents to give a preference to apprentice trainees in the selection process as well as in age pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshak Berozgar Sangh (AIR 1995 SC 1115). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 24.11.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ. 1. The questions which have been referred to the Full Bench, turn on the interpretation of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 the Act and the India Development Bonds Scheme which was notified on 21 September 1991. A Division Bench of this Court, while doubting the correctness of a judgment of an earlier Division Bench in CIT v. Smt. Usha Omer [2011] 338 ITR 448/16 taxmann.com 377/[2012] 204 Taxman 49 (All.) (Mag.) has referred the following questions by a referring order dated 4 September 2012 in Writ Tax No 432 of 2005 for determination by the Full Bench: "(A) Whether the immunity provided to the bond holder of India Development Bond in US dollars, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 which includes that no enquiry to be made from bond holder, regarding the source,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Oral Judgment: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. This reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 5 August 2013 and turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The questions which have been formulated for decision are as follows: (i) Whether the non disposal of an application for registration, by granting or refusing registration, before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would result in deemed grant of registration; and (ii) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport and Conservation of Environment vs. Commissioner of Income Tax holding that the effect of non consideration of the application for registration within the time fixed by Section 12AA(2) would be deemed grant of registration, is legally correct. The Division Bench has prima facie doubted t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Oral Judgment: Dr. DY Chandrachud, C.J. Part IX of the Constitution makes provisions in regard to Panchayats. Part IX was introduced by the Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 which came into force on 24 April 1993. Article 243 (c) defines the expression "intermediate level" as a level between the village and district levels specified by the Governor of a State by public notification to be the intermediate level for the purposes of the Part. Article 243-B (1) requires the constitution in every State of Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of the Part. The present reference to Full Bench relates to the construction of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 19611, more particularly Section 15 which relates to motion of no confidence against a Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat. A Kshettra Panchayat is an elected body at the intermediate level. The reference was occasioned by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Vijay Lakshmi, J. This intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a driver with respondent-corporation U.P.S.E.B. by the order dated 23.3.1977 of the then Executive Engineer. However, his service alongwith services of some other employees were subsequently terminated on 17.11.1979. Aggrieved by the order of termination the Bijli Karmchari Sangh including the appellant filed writ petition no. 1642 of 1979 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.1989 and the following order was passed : "In view of the above these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties terminating the service of the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners would be treated in the service with effect from the date when their services were terminated illega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel representing the claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the correctness of the award dated 25.09.2014 passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Court No.13, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1279 of 2011, Gulab Singh and another Vs. Smt. Parul Sharma and another whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,05,000/- along with interest to the claimants against the Insurance Company. Relevant facts giving rise to the claim petition are that in the forenoon of 02.10.2011 Govinda (deceased) was travelling by private bus no. DL IP 8059 along with other passengers which was going from village Jaiee to Meerut city. At about 11.30 a.m. the bus stopped near Jail Chungi Chopla for the passengers to deboard. The deceased while trying to step down from the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-U.P. Housing And Development Board and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. U.P. Housing and Development Board published an advertisement on 3rd July, 2008 for sale of four plots under the category, institutional land demarcated for office only. Petitioner, before this Court, took part in the auctions, which were held on 15th July, 2008 and offered the highest bid for plot no.14/I.N.S./Office-3 on 45 meter Road,measuring 1584.52 square meters. Bid offered by the petitioner was approved and allotment of the plot was made in his favour under letter dated 12th August, 22008 for total price of Rs. 10,78,26,586/-. Petitioner deposited only 10% of the bid money. No installments were deposited thereafter for the reason that three plots situated over Khasara No. 433/2, Village Prahlad Garhi were submit matter of suit pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Om Prakash-VII, J. 1.Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 : "This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Writ- A No. 31744 of 2011, Rehmat Ullah Khan Vs. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, and others, was preferred by the petitioner- appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. By the said order the petitioner- appellant had been informed that no amount is admissible to him towards gratuity and that entire amount, which was liable to be paid, had already been paid to him. The court after noting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and of the counsel for the respondent Bundelkhand University held that:- "Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a social welfare legislation and same deserves liberal interpretation and as per the same as pension scheme which is applicable in the University concerned does not provide for payment of gratuity, same cannot be compared with gratuity payable under the Act, in view of this as Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has a over-riding effect, the University ...
Tag this Judgment!