Allahabad Court November 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. Raj Kamal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All226
D.N. Jha, J. 1. Petitioner Dr. Raj Kamal has directed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties viz., the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary Medical and Health Department, U. P. Lucknow, the Principal, King George's Medical College, Lucknow and Lucknow University, Lucknow to admit the petitioner in M. S. (Orthopaedic) Course for the session 1982-83. 2. It may be mentioned that petitioner by order dated 25th May, 1982, passed by this Court after hearing the parties and perusing the averments made in the respective affidavits, was ordered to be admitted provisionally to M. S. (Orthopaedic) course until further orders, The petition on that very date was listed for final hearing but the Standing Counsel Sri. B. M. H. Kacher for the University had sought time to file a supplementary counter-affidavit in order to bring certain facts on record for purposes of laying foundation for his argu...
Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Chakkiwala and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All167
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. Ram Bharosey Lal, who is applicant before this Court in the present revision under Section 115, C. P. C. obtained a decree for rejectment of Ram-eshwar Dayal Chakkiwala as well as Ashok Kumar, the two opposite parties in this revision. This was on April 23. 1975 and related to a house of which description, with reference to boundaries, was also contained in the plaint. The decree was assailed in this Court but affirmed However, there was an error in the decree prepared by the office of the first court, inasmuch as, the boundaries of the house were not mentioned therein. The decree-holder then made an application for correction of this error and the trial court, by its order dated May 15, 1975, directed the correction to be made. The correction was actually made on May 16, 1975. An application to recall the order of correction made by the judgment-debtors was rejected. Therefore, they assailed the order of correction in a revision before the District Judge but ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›