Allahabad Court May 1985 Judgments
Harihar Pandey Vs. Mangala Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All9
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. This execution second appeal has been filed at the instance of the judgment-debtor against an order dismissing his objections under Section 47 C.P.C. whereby removal of certain construction raised by him in violation of the decree has been ordered, The appellant has raised several questions of law.2. In order to appreciate appellant's submission the necessary facts need be grasped first. The parties own adjoining land with a passage running from west to east between their properties. When the defendant started raising construction over his land the plaintiff apprehended obstruction to his passage. Consequently the suit was filed. The plaintiff secured an interim injunction restraining any further construction activity. Within two months of this order the parties filed a compromise petition and in terms thereof a decree was passed making the compromise petition as part of the decree. This petition consists of three parts. Para 'Ka' is a sort of preamble to the dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.C. Misra Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Sanjay Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1987All141
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. This is an election petition under the Representation of the People Act by which the petitioner has questioned the election of respondent 1 to the U.P. Assembly from 121-Amethi Assembly Constituency.2. This petition was presented by the petitioner personally on 16-4-85 before the Additional Registrar of this Court. Before filing it before the Additional Registrar, the petition was presented before the Section Officer (Stamps), who made the following report (excluding the report with regard to the limitation and Court-fee).'This is an election petition challenging the election of Dr. Sanjay Singh as M.L.A. from 121-Amethi Constituency.Provisions of Section 82 of the Act in so far as array of parties is concerned have been complied with.But provisions of Section 81(3) about the filing of copies in as many number as there are respondents (11 in number) have not been complied with as only 7 copies that too without annexures and schedules have been filed while the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leela Devi and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Jaiswal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All90
ORDERJ.N. Dubey, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 26-10-1983 of the I Additional District Judge, Varanasi striking off the defence of the applicant No. 2 under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C.2. The opposite party filed a suit for ejectment of the applicants from the house in dispute claiming that the applicant No. 2 had taken the house in question for the applicant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The applicants committed default in making payment of rent and, therefore, their tenancy was terminated and they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the house after one month of the receipt of the notice. The applicants neither paid the rent nor vacated the house and as such she had to file the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the applicants from the house in dispute.3. The applicants filed a joint written statement in the suit. While the applicant No. 1 denied that she was tenant of the house the applicant No. 2 asserted that he had taken the h...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sanjai Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All276
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act having been moved by the opposite party Sanjai Agarwal and another before IV Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, was registered as Suit No. 32 of 1984. It would appear that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited created an agency for supply and distributionof gas in favour of Sanjai Agarwal running M/s Allied Gas Service, Jaunpur. It later cancelled such agency on the ground that the agency was obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation upon the Indian Oil Corporation Limited regarding eligibility of the applicant for such agency. The two specific allegations in that case are that Sanjai Agarwal concealed that he is self employed, being partner in firm, and that he also made wrong representation that he is not paying income tax. The case of the revisionist is that but for the misrepresentation, fraud and material suppression the opposite party would not be eligible for the agency, as such agencies are m...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash NaraIn Srivastava (Deceased by L.R.) and ors. Vs. Ivth Additio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All207
ORDERR.K. Shukla, J. 1. Sri Kailash Narain Srivastava, tenant, has filed this writ petition against the revisional order dt 12-12-1979 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) whereby he has allowed the revision and set aside the finding of fact recorded by Judge, Small Cause Court in Suit No. 542 of 1978.2. The landlord Tarun Kumar filed a suit against the petitioner-tenant with the allegation that the defendant was his tenant of the house No. 149/7 Khandari Gate, Jhansi @ 90/- per month. His tenancy commences on 22nd of every month and terminates on 21st of next month. The first municipal assessment was made in the year 1974-75 and UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to it. It was also alleged that the defendant had committed breach of contract that only 3 to 4 children, husband and wife will reside in the disputed house but now there were 12 occupants. The defendant had damage...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1677
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. Applicant Ram Chandra has come forward with a prayer that the order dated 12-10-1983 of the Magistrate in criminal case No. 1590 of 1983 under the Food Adulteration Act, summoning the applicant Ram Chandra, as well as the criminal proceedings directed against him be quashed.2. It would appear that the Food Inspector took sample of Mawa by purchase, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated as well as deficient both in milk fats and non-fatty substance. The Nagar Swasth Adhikari. lodged a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act concerning that sample of Mawa. As the person from whom the sample was taken and found to be adulterated told that his name is Raj Kumar and gave the address of one Raj Kumar, in the complaint that name and address was mentioned of the accused. It was, however, later discovered that actually it was not Raj Kumar from whom the sample was taken, but it was the present applicant Ram Chandra son of Hub Lal and the latter...
Tag this Judgment!Kuri Lal Rungta Vs. Smt. Banarsi Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All94
K.N. Misra, J.1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24-8-1978 passed by Civil Judge, Gonda decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- with interest, pendente lite and future, till the date of recovery. It was averred that the defendant Koori Lal Rungta had taken a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as loan from one deceased Baij Nath Rajgariya at place Seksaria Sugar Mills Private Limited, Babhanan Bhabhinpur, Tahsil Utraul, District Gonda at the rate of interest of 9 per cent per annum. The interest was payable at every three months. It was averred in para 1 of the plaint that the defendant had pledged certain shares to Sri Baij Nath Rajgariya as security for the payment of the loan amount. An agreement is said to have been executed in respect of the said loan transaction on 27th July, 1959. The...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. JaIn and anr. Vs. Rakesh JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All30
ORDERS.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Bareilly dt. 19-1-1985 by which the applications moved by the revisionists for cross-examination of the plaintiff, Rakesh Jain and Sri P.K. Singh who had filed affidavits in the case were rejected.2. Suit No. 381 of 1984 was filed by Rakesh Jain, plaintiff opposite party in the Court of Civil Judge, Bareilly against the revisionists and others including the tenants of the property for partition and declaration of l/3rd share, accounting and payment of proportionate rent to him. During the pendency of the suit an application was made for appointment of a receiver. In support of this application affidavits were filed of the plaintiff, and P.K. Singh. Counter-affidavits, thereafter, were filed by the revisionists. Before the matter could be heard the revisionists filed an application for cross-examination of Rakesh Jain, Plaintiff and P.K. Singh who had f...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Mohan Bindal Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All126
R.K. Shukla, J.1. These two connected Second Appeals are directed against the judgments and order dated 5-3-l974 passed by Civil Judge, Roorkee at Saharanpur in Suits Nos. 88 of 1967 and 87 of 1967 respectively.2. In both the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore. they are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. Brief facts of the Appeal No. 1605 of 1974 arising out of Suit No. 88 of 1967 are that Satish Mohan Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1400/-deposited by him in the State Bank of India through N.D.G.C. Nos. 910291 and 910293 dated 15 l2-66 pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer, Northern Ganga Canal Roorkee and for interest due thereon with the allegations that the plaintiff was a contractor and the defendant owns, maintains and runs Ganga Canal Division. The aforesaid division of the defendant invited tenders from contractors for certain works on 15-12-66. The plaintiff appellant gave his tender for the works mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Lavkush Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT922(All)
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is a government appeal against the judgment and order of Sri P. Bishnoi, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dt. 31-3-1977 passed in S.T. No. 168-A of 1974 State v. Lavkush Kumar acquitting all the three accused-respondents of the offences punishable under Ss. 395 and 353, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case is that during the days of the occurrence Hari Mohan Prasad (P.W.I) was posted as Inspector, Central Excise Department in Allahabad Division and Mirzapur also was within his jurisdiction. On 24-8-1971 he had gone to Mirzapur for surprise checking. On 25-8-1971 at 4.30 p.m. while patrolling on the road he found that some copper alloys circles were being carried on a cart from the, rolling mills of Bihari Lal. Ram Prasad Upadhya (P.W.3) the Jamadar of the said rolling mill was accompanying the said cart. The Inspector (P.W.I) stopped the said cart for the purposes of checking and demanded Gate-Pass from them. The cartpullers handed over the Gate-pass to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »