Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-05-2014
..... compensation for interference and a dispossession and the right to have his possession restored from the encroacher. 90. another facet of possession is "immediate" or "mediate possession". the possession held by one through another is termed "mediate" while that acquired or retained directly or personally can be said to be "immediate or direct". there is a maxim of civil law that two ..... of exclusive use cannot both be effectually realised at the same time. there are, however, certain exceptions, namely, in the case of mediate possession two persons are in possession of the same thing at the same time. every mediate possessor stands in relation to a direct possessor through whom he holds. two or more persons may possess the same thing in common .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
..... only distributing it every month on behalf of iffco. the wage register was not maintained by the contractor but by the principal employer. the contractor in fact acted as a mediator/link between the principal employer and the workman and had no control and supervision over working of the employee. (6) the witness of iffco management though denied that the workman .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-06-2014
tarun agarwala, j. 1. the petitioner is a civil contractor and is deriving his income by executing civil contracts in various government departments. for the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner, in the course of his business, received certain payments from the government departments, which in the instant case is, the north central railway and a total sum of rs.3,14,766/- as tax was deducted at source by the government department (hereinafter referred to as "tds"). 2. for the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner filed his income tax return in form-4, showing his gross income at rs.6,86,650/-. the petitioner disclosed that he was liable for payment of tax amounting to rs.82,295/- and consequently, claimed a refund of rs.2,32,370/-. 3. the returns were processed by the central processing centre of the income tax department at bangalore. the returns were accepted under the deemed assessment scheme. the central processing centre, bangalore issued an income tax refund of rs.43,740/-. no intimation was given to the petitioner as to why the balance amount of rs.1,88,630/- was not refundable. 4. the petitioner, accordingly, filed an application under section 154 of the income tax act (hereinafter referred to as "the act") for rectification of the mistake and praying for the refund of the balance amount. reminders were sent and when it became known to the petitioner that his application was not received by the department, the petitioner filed a second application under section .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on : Sep-23-2014
dr. d.y. chandrachud, c.j. the reference to the full bench the reference to the full bench has been occasioned upon two orders passed by learned single judges of this court. by the first of those orders, the following question was referred for consideration: "whether an order made under section 156 (3) of the code of criminal procedure, 19731 is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of section 397." subsequently, a learned single judge of this court, while noticing the above reference, referred two additional questions for consideration by a larger bench: "(1) whether an order made under section 156 (3) of the code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under section 397; and (2) if the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a necessary party and is required to be heard before a final order is passed." the full bench decision in father thomas before we enter upon the issues which are raised in this reference, it would, at the outset, be necessary to traverse, for clarity of exposition, the ground which has been covered by a decision of a full bench of this court in father thomas vs state of up2. in that case, a single judge of this court was of the view that as the accused has no locus standi before an order of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-31-2014
dinesh gupta, j. 1. the petitioners-appellants retired serving in fatehpur district cooperative bank ltd.-a cooperative society registered under the u.p. cooperative societies act, engaged in the business of banking, under the banking regulation act, 1954, (the bank) with its area of operation in the state of up. in these special appeals they have assailed the judgement delivered by learned single judge on 5.7.2005, by which he dismissed the writ petitions filed by them challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority, under the payment of gratuity act, rejecting their applications for payment of gratuity calculated at one months salary (inclusive of dearness allowance) for every completed year of service and interest thereon @ 18% on account of delay in payment of the total amount. all the appellants retired sometimes in the year 1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. the bank sent letters to them accepting its liability to pay gratuity to them calculated at the rate of 15 days wages per completed year of service rendered by them for the bank. the petitioners addressed their replies to the bank making a grievance that the details of the amounts have not been mentioned, with a protest that the gratuity should be calculated at the rate of one month's wages per completed year of service. the bank did not accept the request and credited the gratuity calculated at 15 days' wages per year of service to the bank accounts of the petitioners, giving rise to their .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-22-2014
amreshwar pratap sahi and rajan roy, jj. heard sri nipun singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, sri vivek varma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and sri ashok kumar rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. by means of this writ petition, the petitioner, i.e. college, under which the respondent no.3 was employed as lecturer on contract basis under the self finance scheme, has challenged the judgment of the vice chancellor, mahatma jyotiba phule, rohil khand university, whereby he has declined to accord approval for removal of the respondent no.3 from service and has disapproved such action of the petitioner. the undisputed facts are that the contractual appointments of lecturers are made under the self finance scheme in accordance with the government orders issued from time to time and their terms and conditions of service are also regulated by the said government orders. such appointments are not made under the u.p. state universities act, 1973 nor the conditions of service are governed thereunder. the respondent no.3 was appointed as lecturer on contract basis under the self finance scheme by the petitioner on 31.10.2010 in the department of eduction after due and proper selection for a period of three years. the said appointment was alleged to have been made under the government order dated 09.05.2000. the appointment order also contained a stipulation that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three years, his name would be considered on .....Tag this Judgment!