Allahabad Court December 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.
S.N. Seth Vs. Smt. Prakashwati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All242
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the 9th Additional District Judge, Kanpur (Nagar) dated 21-4-1990.2. The short and admitted facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the landlady-respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 of the J. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of premises No. 10/429 Kahalai Lines, Kanpur in her favour on the ground, inter alia, that Dr. T.N. Seth, who was the tenant has migrated permanently to America and has substantially removed his effects and indicated his brother, S.N. Seth, who has no tenancy right, his possession there of is illegal and unauthorised and, therefore, the accommodation in question is deemed vacant under Section 12 of the Act, and the same is bona fidely required for occupation by herself and her family members for residential purpose, as they were living...
Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. Sampoornand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1130
Palok Basu, J.1. The petitioner Dinesh Kumar Srivastava through this writ petition wanted a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider him for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Education against the Advertisement No. 1 of 1998 for which he had made an application and wanted a direction to permit him to appear before Selection Committee in the meeting scheduled to be held for selecting a person from candidates who had applied.2. When the writ petition was filed, time was granted to the learnedcounsel for the opposite parties to file a counter-affidavit which has been filed and rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. As Jointly requested by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. Sri V. K. Upadhyaya, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has beenheard at substantial length and SriAnil Tewari, learned counsel for thetwo respondents, i.e.,Sampoornanand SanskritVishwavidyalaya. Varanasi (For ...
Ram Singar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1133
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners were alleged to have been appointed in the posts of Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 16th June, 1992. The said appointments were found to be irregular by the Conservator of Forest, Gorakhpur, which is apparent from the order dated 29th June 1992 being Annexure-11, to the writ petition. Accordingly, the appointments were cancelled by an order dated 30th June, 1992, which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being number Ml of 1992. By an order dated 27th August, 1992, the said writ petition was disposed of. A copy of the said order is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. In the said order, the order of cancellation was quashed on the ground that it was not an order of termination and was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving any opportunity of hearing. In the said order, however, it was made clear that the respondent would be free to pa...
Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Ku. Indu Bala Bansal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All195
Bhagwan Din, J. 1. This review petition is directed against the judgment of this Court dated 10-12-1996 disposing of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35283 of 1994.2. Indian Oil Corporation, Northern Division by an advertisement dated 12-10-1993 in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' proposed to award distributorship for the category of physically handicapped persons, for the place, Nahtaur, District, Bijnor (U.P.). Km. Indu Bala Bansal and Rajendra Pal Singh among many others applied for the dealership at the said place. The Indian Oil Corporation, however, sanctioned the distributorship in favour of Rajendra Pal Singh and issued a letter of intent. Against thereto Km. Indu Bala Bansal submitted a representation to the Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation seeking cancellation of the letter of intent. When no inclination, to cancel the letter of intent, was shown by Indian Oil Corporation, she filed a writ petition No. 35283 of 1994, challenging the order issuing letter of intent/appointment ...
Sanjai Makkar and ors. Vs. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1958
ORDERO.P. Jain, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 1234 of 1998 and four other criminal revisions mentioned above are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The brief facts, according to complaint, are that M/s. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate is a Company which has its registered office at Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). The Company has a Steel Mill situated at village Nara in district Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.). The accused is also a Private Limited Company known as Essmay Special Steels Private Limited which has its registered office at New Delhi. The accused purchased some steel ingots from the complainant company and a cheque for Rs. 67,872/- bearing No. 732097 dated 11th February, 1994 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Barola (NOIDA), Ghaziabad was given by the accused to the complainant. The complainant gave this cheque to its Bank (State Bank of Patiala) and the cheque was forwarded by the State Bank of Patiala to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Barola (NOIDA), Ghaziabad but its payment was refus...
University of Allahabad Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC611
O.P. Garg, J. 1. The order dated 18.11.1998, passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, District Judge. Allahabad, scrapping of issue No. 3 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has given rise to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the following circumstances :2. There is a property No., 21/31 Moti Lal Nehru Road, revenue plot Nos. 8 and 9. Allahabad, which is earmarked for residential purposes in the master plan. The said land was held by one N. D. Agarwal in his capacity as perpetual lessee with transferable rights. Uma Shankar Singh-respendent No. 3, who claims himself to be the Secretary Shiv Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Allahabad, purchased the rights in the land from N. D. Agarwal through three separate registered sale deeds after obtaining a 'no-objection' certificate from the Prescribed Authority, Urban Land Celling, Allahabad.3. The land aforesaid was acquired by the State Government by...
Jitendra Vs. Hari Raj and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC665
O.P. Garg, J.1. This is an appeal under Rule 47 of the U. P. Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1994') against the order dated 13.4.1998 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, in an Election Petition No. 21 of 1995 filed under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1994 whereby the election petitioner-Hari Raj-present respondent No. 1 was declared to have been duly elected as Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat, Ghaziabad.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. K. Sharma. learned counsel for the respondent No. 1--Hari Raj.3. An election to the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat. Ghaziabad, was held on 22.5.1995. Admittedly there are 28 members who were entitled to vote for electing the Adhyaksha out of whom 27 members participated in the election as one of the members was absent on account of illness. Out of t...
Pappu Alias Ausan Singh Vs. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1885
Brijesh Kumar, A.C.J.1. The above noted two writ petitions are directed against the orders of detention of the petitioners passed under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri. The orders of detention in respect of both the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions have been passed on 20-12-1997. Since the grounds of detention of the two petitioners are same as well as other facts including the points involved, both the petitions have been heard together. However, the only difference between the facts of the two cases is that the representation of the petitioner Pappu alias Ausan Singh in Writ Petition No. 21277 of 1998 was rejected by the Central Government by order dated 24-2-1998; whereas the representation of Rajeev, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21293 of 1998 was rejected by order dated 2-3-1998. Both the parties agree that in all other respects the petitions raise similar questions of fact and law. therefore, both these petitions a...
Sqn. Ldr. H.S. Kulshrestha Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC668
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is a public interest litigation filed by a former Air Force Officer in which he has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents not to issue free rail passes to Ex-Members of Parliament. It has been alleged in this petition that the respondent is giving free railway passes to former Members of Parliament. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In a poor country like ours, such passes cannot be given in this manner. Former M. Ps. are not a privileged group.3. Shri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the railways submitted that the ex-M.Ps. have not been impleaded in this petition. In our opinion, this is a policy matter and hence there is no need to implead the Ex-M.Ps. He has then alleged that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. In our opinion, this is a public interest litigation and can be filed by anyone. In fact, we appreciate the good spirit of the pet...
Khokha Rai Vs. Xiith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC657
Sudhir Narain, J.This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.1998 rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to appoint next friend of the petitioner as he is of unsound mind and the order dated 21.10.1998 dismissing the Revision against the aforesaid order.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of arre'ars of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner, Khokha Rai. The petitioner filed a written statement in the suit admitting various facts stated in the plaint. Subsequently he filed an application alleging that he had engaged Ram Bahadur Singh. Advocate who colluded with the plaintiff and got a wrong written-statement filed jeopardising his interest. He is almost an illiterate person and he only puts his signatures on the papers. The trial court rejected this application disbelieving his version. The revision preferred against this order was dismissed. He filed a writ petition in the High Court which wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »