Allahabad Court November 1998 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.
Pramod Kumar and Others Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn.), Gorkhapur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC875
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23.4.1986 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 26.4.1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby objections filed by the petitioners and appeal filed by them were dismissed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority respectively constituted under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).2. The brief and relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to respondent No. 4 Sri Shatrughan Singh who was recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 3 Bighas, 3 Biswas and 13 Dhoors out of his holding be not declared as surplus. By order dated 20.12.1974, the prescribed authority declared the ...
Ram Deo and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1325
M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 4 of 1998, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. We have perused the said Ordinance and find no unconstitutionality in the same. It is alleged that there was no necessity to promulgate the said Ordinance. It is not for this Court to decide the necessity of the Ordinance. An Ordinance can be challenged only if it ''as passed in violation of some provision of Constitution. We do not find that any provision of the Constitution which has been violated by the said Ordinance. It is furtheralleged that the said Ordinance Is Illegal, without jurisdiction and discriminatory. We do not find it so. In our opinion there is no violation of Article 123. Thus, there is no force in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. We uphold the validity of the said Ordinance, as well as the validity of the Act, which replaced the Ordinance....
Jai Prakash Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M., Sadar, Deoria and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC10; (1999)1UPLBEC697
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. Jai Prakash Agarwal, respondent No. 4 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33181 of 1998 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23rd October. 1998, passed by the single Judge by which he stayed the operation of the order dated 29.9.1998, passed by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1. At the time of admission/hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection on 29th October. 1998 against the maintainability of the appeal. It was submitted that as prescribed authority by his order decided the dispute of election as a tribunal between the parties, which was subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, from orders passed in such a writ petition, special appeal under .Chapter VIII. Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is not legally maintainable. Considering the preliminary objection, we gave time to the learned counsel for the parties and fixed 30th October. 1998 for hearing on this preliminary objection.2....
Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi Vs. Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC1
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of these two writ petitions, in which common questions of law and fact are involved, the various orders passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 176 of 1998 as well as revisional court are sought to be quashed.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard S./Sri S. P. Gupta and Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner--Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination [for short 'C.I.S.C.E.') Sri S. N. Varma, assisted by Sri Sharad Varma on behalf of the petitioner-St. Peter's College as well as Sri Pankaj Mittal appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3-Suraj Manchanda, a minor student represented by his father/guardian Dr. Subhash Manchanda.3. Suraj Manchanda was admittedly a student of class XIIth (P. C. M. Group) in St. Peter's College, Agra. He had filled in the form for appearing in class XIIth examination which was to be conducted by the C.I.S.C.E.. The examinations were to commence w.e.f. 16.3.1998. It is alleged that tho...
Smt. Lekhpata and Others Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Faizabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC696
S.H.A. Raza, J. 1. The petitioner filed a suit in the nature of permanent Injunction restraining the opposite parties from Interfering into the house, 'sahan'. 'ghera', 'saria', well and the trees situated on plot No. 306. The case of the petitioner appears to be is that the respondents by setting up an impostor got a compromise filed in the proceedings for correction of papers and succeeded in getting the name of Ori expunged from the revenue records. The suit was filed by Smt. Panchi who is widow of Ori. After the death of Smt. Panchi, the petitioners were substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Panchi. During the trial of the case, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the suit is cognizable by the civil court? The issue was answered in negative. A revision was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the doors of this Court were knocked by the petitioners by filing the present writ petition.2. Relying upon seven cardinal principles enunciated by a Constitut...
Manik Lal Bharitya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)1UPLBEC197
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.B. Singh, appearing for Opp. Parties 3, 4, and 5.2. Relief which the petitioner has sought in the Instant petition, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of wire-man in the Establishment in the light of the directions embodied in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shisuksha Berozgar Sangh and Ors., (1995) 1 UPBEC 320 (SC) and the consequent G.O. 9890/23-4-96 Sankhya B-1070/Ka-1/1996 Lucknow, dated Sept. 12, 1996 (Annexure 3 to the petition). Sri N.B. Singh appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5 raised certain objections having the complexion of preliminary objections and canvassed that the petition is had maintainable against the private party.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and regard being had to the...
Wali Mohammad Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ692
P.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. Petitioner Wali Mohammad of this Habeas Corpus petition has challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under the order dated 30-11-1997 (Annexure I to the petition), passed by respondent No. 2 and also his continued detention under the aforesaid order. He has also prayed that the respondents may be directed to release the petitioner from detention forthwith.2. Along with the order of detention dated 30-11-1997 petitioner was also served the grounds on which basis respondent No. 2 formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention against the petitioner. The grounds have been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. The facts stated in the grounds are that the petitioner is a criminal and daring person and in order to get illegal financial benefits, commits heinous crimes in a planned manner, armed with illegal weapons with his accomplices on account of which residents of B...
Bhagwan Swaroop Singh Vs. Dharm Pal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1351
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is from the order dated 23-8-1996, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 75 of 1996, by which appellant has been found guilty of committing contempt of this Court and has been sentenced to undergo four months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.2. Facts, in short, giving rise to this contempt appeal are that opposite party No. 1 Dharm Pal Singh was appointed assistant teacher in C. T. grade in July, 1973 in Swargiya Harbansh Singh Inter College, Rewari, district Fatehpur (then only a higher secondary school). The appointment of opposite party No. 1 was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 23-9-1974. He further claimed that he was promoted to L. T. grade on 29-12-1975 which was also approved by the District Inspector of Scho...
Umesh Chandra Saxena and ors. Etc. Vs. Administrator General and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All109
1. All these matters were heard together as the same were connected through a common link of administration of a religious-cum-philanthropic society, named Shri Ram Chandra Mission. It was established by late Shri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj and, on his death, unfortunately, disputes have arisen regarding his spiritual heirship to control the affairs of the Mission. The disputes, gave rise to several litigations and the above four are the result of such disputes between the parties. 2. Special Appeal No. 829 of 1995 has been filed under the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and in this appeal the judgment and order dated 16-10-1995, passed by Hon. A.K. Benerji, J. of this High Court, has been impugned. The Hon'ble single Judge had allowed application No. A-415 filed before him and had rejected the plaint of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1994 under Section 7, Rule 11(a) CPC. The said testamentary suit was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and the Administrator Gene...
D.S. Batra and ors. Vs. Lal Chand Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1UPLBEC279
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. All the aforesaid appeals are from the various orders passed in Civil Contempt Petition No. 31 of 1996 and Civil Contempt Petition No. 1629 of 1996 and on the applications moved in the aforesaid contempt petitions. Both the above contempt cases were being heard together before the learned Single Judge. Thus similar questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals which are being decided by a common judgment with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 1998 shall be the leading case.2. For proper appreciation of the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeals. It is necessary to mention the disputes between the parties which were decided by this Court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court by different orders, the willful disobedience of which was alleged in Contempt Petition No. 31 of 1996 and 1629 of 1996.3. Writ Petition (C) No. 534 of 1991 was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court under Ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »