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.
Ajay Iron and Steel Works, Varanasi and Another Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC314
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Sri V. K. Shukla and Sri Atul Kumar Pandey for the etitioners and Sri Mohd. Isha Khan for the respondents,2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notice dated 2nd June. 1998 and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to disconnect four of his telephones. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that those telephones have already been disconnected. Now he has prayed for restoration of those telephone connections.3. It appears that petitioner No. 2 Vijay Kumar Gupta was a partner in the firm Lala Sukhdev Ram Rolling Mills and there was a telephone connection No, 348597 in the name of that firm. Obviously, since the petitioner No. 2 was a partner in the said firm, he is liable to pay the telephone bills of the firm since under Section 25 of the Partnership Act. each partner is individually and severally liable.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the other telephone connections bearing Nos. 370077, 342619, 340440 and ...
Amroha Textile Weste Association Vs. Rajya KrishIn Utpadan Mandi Paris ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC313
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Sri Sunil Ambwani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.9.1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The controversy in the present case is very narrow. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition that the members of the petitioners Association purchase cotton textile [Viscose, Polyester, Synthetics, etc.) and thread cuttings and wastes, which is dyed and coloured, from textile and thread mills and garment manufacturers and exporters of Bombay. Madras, Bangalore, Calcutta, Delhi. Panipat, Saharanpur. Sitapur. Bhadohi, Jaipur and Ludhiana. etc. The cotton and textile waste and thread cuttings are brought to Amroha. They are first cleaned and thereafter, cut into small pieces with the help of iron cutters (Gandasa). The cleaning and sorting is done by the women workers and the cutting work is done by male ...
JamiluddIn Vs. Shamsuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC384
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Haidar Husain, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-revisionist and Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party.2. While hearing this revision, a learned single Judge concluded that on the question whether one common suit for eviction of a tenant from two separate tenements is maintainable, there is dissonance between the two single Judge decisions rendered in Ram Chandra v. Judge, Small. Causes Court, Farrukhabad and others, 1984 (1) ARC 138 and Smt. Samundari Devi v. Shanti Prakash Gupta, 1986 UPRCC 561. According to the learned single Judge, views similar to the one expressed in the case of Smt. Samundari Deui v. Shanti Prakash Gupta (supra) were also expressed by another single Judge in Devesh Chandra Gupta v. Dina Nath, 1992 (1) ARC 3.Therefore, at the behest of the learned single Judge, the matter has been referred to this Bench by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 12.4.1997 for resolving the disco...
Khalil Ullah Khan Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC558
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1976 passed by Judge Small Causes Court. Allahabad respondent No, 2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the judgment of the appellate authority-respondent No. 1 dated 21.12.1981 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondents filed Suit No. 186 of 1971 on the allegations that they are the landlords of the disputed accommodation. The petitioner was a tenant of the disputed portion. They had-applied for permission to institute the suit against the petitioner for eviction before the District Magistrate under Section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had granted permission on 2.1.1969. This permission was finally affirmed by the State Government on 5.2.1971. The landlords terminated the tenancy by not...
O.P. Sharma Vs. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC620; [1999(81)FLR585]
U.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was suspended in contemplation of an enquiry. However, he was reinstated with effect from 9.5.1985. Ultimately in the enquiry, the petitioner was found not guilty of the charges and he was reinstated with effect from the date of suspension. The respondents by order dated 28.7.1994 sought to recover certain amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner during the period of suspension did not remain present at the station, therefore, the said period having been treated as leave without pay, the amount paid on account of subsistence allowance was sought to be deducted on the amount payable on account of gratuity. By another order dated 4.7.1995, the said amount was sought to be deducted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner has been reinstated after he was found n...
Krishna Pati Nath Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All86
ORDER1. The petitioner who is Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Padari Khurd, District, Maharajganj, has come up with a prayer to quash the various orders passed by the Government as contained in Annexures 3 to 6 of the writ petition abolishing the Seed Store and Purchase Centres in rural areas.2. A perusal of the various orders passed by theGovernment shows that the Government had givenvarious reasons for adopting such a policy decision though in some cases it has not altogetherabolished those centres.3. Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, contended that the policy decision of the Government is discriminatory inasmuch as such centres have been allowed to remain in Hill areas and Bundelkhand Region and thus it is, violative of Articles 14, 39(a), 40 and 48 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Singh also contended that since no counter has been filed, the relief claimed for, be granted.4. Sri P.K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of t...
Virendra Prasad Nigam Vs. Kalika Swaroop
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC712
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Present revision has been filed under Section 25, of the Provincial Small Causes Court's Act, by defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.90 passed by IVth Addl. District Judge. Barabankl, acting as Judge, Small Causes Court, decreeing the plaintiff's suit (S.C.C. No. 3/84), for ejectment of the applicant from shop No. G/1282-A, Mohalla Kanoongoyan, Nawabganj, Barabanki (for short the 'shop in dispute') and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,550 as arrears of rent.2. Plaintiff-respondent filed aforesaid suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the shop in dispute and for recovery of amount ofarrears of rent, pleading that the shop tn dispute was constructed in the year 1979 and provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter called for short 'the Act') had no application over the same.3. It was pleaded that shop in dispute was let out to the defendant-applicant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 ...
Umesh Chand Bhilwar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC943; (1999)IILLJ1093All; (1999)1UPLBEC27
G.P. Mathur, J. on behalf of D. P. Mohapatra, C.J. also. 1. The petitioner, a Probationary Officer tn a Bank, has challenged the order by which his services were terminated. There was a difference of opinion between the members of the division bench which heard the writ petition earlier. The Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 16.8.1993 directed that the writ petition be placed before a full bench and that is how the case has come before us for hearing.2. The Parliament enacted the Regional Rural Banks Act (Act No. XXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for the Incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks with a view of developing the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected ...
Kailash Chand Vs. Vth A.C.J., Meerut and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC17
P.K. Jain, J.1. Short question involved in this appeal under Section 6A of the Court Fees Act. 1870 as amended by U. P. Act. No. XIX of 1938 whether under the facts of the present case the court fee is payable by the plaintiff under Section 7(IVA) or under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.2. For determination of the controversy in hand the facts in short are that plaintiff-appellant filed Suit No. 680 of 1996 against the respondents alleging that Sri Musuddl Lal the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants created Hindu undivided family during his life time and was Kartaof the said family. The suit property belonged to the Hindu undivided family. The said Musuddi Lal was never exclusive owner of the said property. He died of cancer on 14.12.88. Defendant No. 2 sent a notice dated 14.5.96 to the sons of the plaintiff alleging execution of will dated 11.8.88 by the said Musuddi Lal and defendant No. 2 under the said will claimed to be the owner and landlord of...
Jiwan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC146; 1999CriLJ1889
D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the District Magistrate. Kaushambi, directing their detention under Section 3. sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the 'Act') on the purported satisfaction of the authority that the detention was necessary to prevent the detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The incidents referred to and the facts narrated in the detention order passed against the petitioners are similar. The main incident of 30th November, 1997, on the basis of which the detention orders were passed, is common. The questions of fact and contentions of law raised on behalf of the petitioners are also similar except in the case of Shyam Narain Karwaria, petitioner of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 10212 of 1998, who has raised an additional point that the detention order is Invalid since it has been passed on the same set of facts aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »