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.
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1314
B.K. Roy and R.K. Singh. JJ. 1. The prayer of the petitioner is toquash the circle rates dated 22.12.1990 and 28.11.1992 prescribed by the Collector, Muzaffarnagar as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 and strike down Rule 340A of U. P. Stamp Rules. 1942. The cause of action is based on the fact that the petitioner and others are desirous to sell their lands which being of very poor quality, at the rate of Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 5,000 per bigha in order to establish their livelihood. The Collector, Muzaffarnagar in exercise of his powers under Rule 340 has put his land in the range of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per square metres whereas in 1990, it was at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. metres.2. On 23.4.1993, the Bench before which this writ petition was placed had passed the following order :'Learned standing counsel is granted one month's time for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter. Until further orders, respondent will register provisionally the docum...
Vineet Kumar Vs. Neel Hans Garg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC829
J.C. Mishra, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.9.1998 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge [E.G. Act). Meerut decreeing the suit flled by the opposite party for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent.2. It is not disputed that the revisionist was tenant of the premises in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100. Since the rent payable was more than Rs. 2,000. there was no applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.3. The defendant contested the suit inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner and landlord of the premises in suit, but he transferred his rights to the third person and. therefore, he could not prosecute the suit. The defendant did not adduce evidence and allowed the suit to be decided ex parte.the allegation regarding transfer was vague. The plaintiff denied this allegation. The defendant could not file any deed indicating transfer of the property by plaintiff and this plea was rightly rejected by the learned Judge.4. The...
Smt. Dharmawati Tewari and Others Vs. Prem Shanker Tewari and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC701
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1982 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1972.2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed Original Suit No. 594 of 1961 for partition for their 4/35th share in the house in dispute situated at Mirzapur. Deputy Raghubar Dayal Lane. Narhl Lucknow, described and specified by the boundaries given at the foot of the plaint. In Schedule A annexed to the plaint, following family pedigree was given : Sheo Bhajan died 1907 | __________________________________________________________________________________ | | Sukndev Prasad died 1906 Mangal Prasad died in 1929 | | | | | | ________________________________________________ Daughter Savitri | | Devi Shanker died 1936 Uma Shanker died in 1949 | Krishnawati widow of Uma Shanker (Deft. 10) | | | _________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Prem Shanker Jagdish shanker Brahma Shanker Om Shanke...
Ajay Kumar Jaitly Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC1; (1999)ILLJ995All; (1999)1UPLBEC388
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1.The petitioner filed the present petition for issuance of mandamus to redesignate the post of Instructor in the Department of Fine Arts of Allahabad University to the post of lecturer and to pay salary of lecturer to the petitioner who presently is holding the post of instructor.2. The facts stated in the writ petition, relevant for the purpose, are that the petitioner was appointed as instructor in the Department of Fine Arts of Allahabad University by order dated 19/20.1.1987. He was appointed on permanent basis by order dated 2.12.1989. Such appointment, it has been stated, was upon successful selection by a Selection Committee consideringseveral candidates including the petitioner. The petitioner is performing functions of lecturer in the department concerned including teaching graduate as also postgraduate classes.3. It has been further stated in the writ petition that on considering representation made by the instructors from time to time, the Executive Cou...
Kanhaiya Prasad Vs. Assistant Collector, First Class/S.D.M., Banda and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1318
B.K. Roy and R.K. Singh, JJ. 1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the Order dated29.5.1992 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Pargana Adhikari, Banda in Case No. 225 of 1991, under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act (as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition).2. A perusal of the impugned order and other documents shows following facts :(i) Pursuant to inquiry and report, a notice was issued to the petitioner who had purchased the land vide deed dated 10.7.1988 executed by Avanindra Nath Gupta. Ratindra Nath Gupta and Abhinendra Nath Gupta by getting it affirmed before A.D. Singh. Notary, Banda to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 24,086 (Rs. 2,175 on account of deficiency of the stamps. Rs. 161 on account of registration fee and Rs. 21,750 towards penalty) be not realised from him. (ii) Upto 25.5.1992 on every date the petitioner prayed for grant of time to file objection but deliberately he filed no objection which proves his intention f...
L.M.L. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC659
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ. 1. Although we have passed separate orders in this writ petition, yet we are agreed that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies also to the proceedings under Part II of the Act and hence Interim relief can be granted by the civil court pending the arbitration proceedings.2. However, the Forum for filing an application under Section 9 of the Act is not the High Court but the civil court.3. The petition is disposed of.M. Katju, J. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, as well as Sri Mohd. is a Khan learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.5. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides for interim measures during arbitral proceedings applies also to provision under Part II of the Act. No doubt Section 2(2) of the Act states that Part 1 applies where the place of arbitr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›