Allahabad Court March 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.
Daya Shanker Vs. Xth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC792
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Sri S. M. Dayal counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit whose copy was served upon the respondents' counsel on 23.1.98 and the same is taken on record.2. Heard Sri S. M. Dayal counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yasharth counsel for the landlord-respondent No. 3.3. This is landlord's petition against the order of respondent No. 2, the prescribed authority who allowed the landlord's release application. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 5.12.97.4. The dispute relates to a shop in which the petitioner is carrying on his business of sweetmeat. The landlord-respondent No. 3 applied for the release of the said shop, on the ground that his son Kailash Nath was without any Job and the shop in question was required for establishing him in his business. The landlord further alleged that he would also be sitting with the son in the shop in question and will carry on the business. The defence of the p...
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1201
ORDERR.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In this bunch of writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the legality of the recovery of the amount demandedfrom them as collection charges at the rate of 10% of the amount sought to be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue in connection with the unpaid price of sugarcane purchased by them. In all these writ petitions question of fact and taw are similar and they can be disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29612 of 1992 shall be the leading case.2. Facts giving rise to the writ petition are that petitioner has a unit at Iqbalpur, district Hardwar which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of crystal sugar through vacuum pan process. For manufacture of sugar the essential raw-material is sugarcane which is purchased from cane-growers from the areas reserved for it under the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). As the sugar is an essential commodity, the price...
Durga Prasad and Others Vs. Viith Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1161
J. C. Gupta, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 21.1.98 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) decreeing the plaintiff-respondents suit for ejectment of the petitioner.2. When this writ petition came up for hearing for admission. Sri K. K. Tripathi counsel for the landlord-respondents put in appearance and in the circumstances of the case with the consent of parties' counsel, this writ petition is disposed of finally.3. Undlsputedly earlier to the present suit, the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest had filed Suit No. 737 of 1990 against the tenant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that suit, rent for the period from 1.5.73 to 18.4.80 was claimed. The defence was that on refusal by plaintiff rent from 1.5.73 to 31.3.80 had been deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act as such only three months rent was due on the date of service of notice. After the receipt of notice of demand, rent was tendered t...
Patverdhan Singh Vs. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1181
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel, Sri Yasharth and Sri R. N. Bhallacounsel appearing for the landlords-respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.97 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar making an order of release in favour of the respondents-landlords. Revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by the order dated 17.12.97 passed by Sri M. C. Jain, District Judge. Kanpur Nagar. By the same judgment the connected revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed which challenged the order of the Rent Control Officer allowing review application of the landlords.3. It would be a waste of time to narrate the facts as they have already been detailed in the order of the revisional court, whose copy has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.4. As per the finding recorded by the Courts below, it was fully established that an application for release moved on beh...
Mahabir Singh Sharma Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1293; (1999)1UPLBEC137
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The order dated 10.12.1996 dismissing the writ petition in default has been sought to be recalled.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R. K. Jain and Miss. Aru Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The grounds made out appears to be sufficient. The order dated 10.12.1996 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its file.4. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.5. By order dated 26.6.1987, opposite party No. 4 was promoted to the post of Lecturer in History in the concerned school. This order has been challenged by the petitioner.6. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order on the ground that the post which was filled up by promotion pursuant to the said order is a post subject to be filled up by direct recruitment. Secondly, the respondent No. 4 was not qualified for the post when the vacancy occurred and as such the respondent No. 4 could not have been promoted to the said ...
Ram Kishan and Others Vs. Collector, Ghaziabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1423
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.1984 passed by the Tehslldar, petitioners filed a revision under sub-section (4A) of the Section 122B of U. P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act) which has been dismissed. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.2. Sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the Act prescribes the procedure for establishment of title through a suit if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector.3. Mr. M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by reason of sub-section (4D), after the revision, no suit is maintainable.4. Sub-section (4E) refers to the order of Assistant Collector only. It has not referred to the order of the Collector. Therefore, If a revision is preferred against an order of the Assistant Collector, then no suit would be maintainable. But sub-section (4D) provides that suit can be filed either against the order of the Assistant Collector or ...
Rewa Gases (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1523; [2000]101CompCas212(All)
Palok Basu, J.1. The only controversy involved in the bunch of these writ petitions is whether on the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the Instance of concerned respondent, recourse could be taken to the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (for short Recovery Act).2. M/s. Rewa Gases Private Limited have prayed that recovery certificate dated 6.10.1990 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition), Vikas Industrial Gases Limited have prayed that citation No. 132803 dated 21.8.1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and Vindhyachal Air Products Private Limited have prayed that recovery certificate dated 6.11.1996 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) may be quashed. In these documents, substantial amount is sought to be recovered against the three petitioners respectively for the alleged price of the materials supplied by the respondent concerned to the petitioners. Undlsputedly, U. P.. Carbide and Chemicals Limited had made certain ...
Mohd. Tufail Khan Vs. Director of Education, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1676
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In this case, counter and rejoinder-affidavits were filed by the parties. Record of the case was also produced by learned standing counsel at the time of hearing, in compliance of the order dated 29.5.97 passed by this Court. I, therefore, have heard this matter finally at this stage.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling the result of Intermediate examination of the petitioner for the year 1996. Prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of Intermediate examination (Roll No. 374384) has also been made.3. Brief facts of the case, as transpired from the material on record, are that petitioner appeared as a regular candidate in Intermediate examination for the year 1996. He was allotted aforesaid roll number ...
Umesh Kumar Gaur and anr. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2085
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The factual background of the case as appears from the writ petition is that at the instance of the respondents a select list was prepared following an advertisement and selection process for the post of cleaner. The petitioner No. 1 is at Serial No. 141 in Trade Motor Mechanic and the name of petitioner No. 22 is at serial No. 5 in the list of Trade Wireman. As the petitioners did not receive appointment letters although several other candidates had been appointed in the select list, the petitioners approached the respondents and made representation; also for issuance of appointment letter. Thereafter, the petitioners were informed orally that the Government had imposed ban on new appointments and therefore the petitioners could not be appointed. As the petitioners were not successful in getting appointment letters and substantial time passed by the present writ petition was filed.2. Respondents filed counter affidavit wherein the selection of the petitioner ha...
Smt. Luxmi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4140
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition has been prepared by the petitioner Smt. Luxmi Devi for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the order dated 5-10-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1995, Smt. Madhuri Devi v. Smt. Maya Devi and another (Annexure 13 to the writ petition).2. Heard counsel for the parties at length.3. The following pedigree may be placed on record to help in proper appreciation of the merits of this writ petition.(See table below)Shiv Prasad (died in 1956)|Ram Behari = Smt. Raj Kumari(died on 10-10-93) (daughter)| (died on 22-7-88)__________________________________________________________| | |Smt. Luxmi Devi Smt. Madhuri Devi Smt. MayaDevi(unmarried)(petitioner) (Respondent No. 2) (Respondent No. 3)|_______________________________________________________| | |Krishna Prakash Shree Prakash JaiPrakash(Respondent No. 4)4. The dispute relates to 6 plots in K...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »