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.
Ram Prakash Gupta Alias Babu Prakash Gupta Alias Babu Lal Vs. Dhakkan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1152
B. K. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on admission of this revision. This revision has been preferred by the tenant Ram Prakash Gupta against the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge. Ghaziabad, in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 1992, whereby the amendment application of the plaintiff of the suit had been allowed- The suit has been filed in the year 1992 for ejectment on the basis of the relationship of landlord and lenant stating that Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building which was an old one. During the pendency of the suit by U. P. Act, No. 5 of 1995. Section 2 (g) of the Act No, 17 of 1972 was amended w.e.f. 29.9.94 to excluae from the operation of the Act any building whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 2.000.2. The plaintiff of the suit had moved an amendment application to take up the plea in the suit that the entire building of which this accommodation is a part contains Several tenants, the monthly rent of whom taken togeth...
Gaindi Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC794
B.K. Boy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash (i) the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No. 1215-III-2(6)/84 dated June 7. 1955 read with Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 20/1/55-Judl. (1) dated May 14, 1955, published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated 24th August. 1985, as contained in Annexure-1. (ii) the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, bearing No. 2915/III-2(6)-84-CAD, dated July 28. 1986, published in the Uttar Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 28th July, 1986, as contained in Annexure-2, and (iii) the award dated 23.8.1988 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Nainital in Case No. 49/3 of 1984-85, as contained in Annexure-3.2. The petitioners assert that the land in question measuring one acre, of plot No. 319 of village Kichha, Pargana Rudrapur, district Nainital was acquired for construction of Telephone Exchange and Staff Quarters whereas theTelephone Ex...
Jagdish Singh Vs. District Judge, Nainital and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC789
D.K. Seth, J.1. Case No. 22/250 of 1977-78 under the provisions of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was decided against by the petitioner by an order dated 7.11.1979. Appeal No. 888 of 1979 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 19.8.1981. These two orders are being challenged in the present writ petition.2. Mr. G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the Impugned orders on four grounds. His first contention was that the premises being a land held by hereditary tenure-holder does not come within the definition of public premises. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner having been holding the land derived from hereditary tenure-holder, his occupation does not come within the definition of unauthorised occupation. Thirdly, he contended that the prescribed authority cannot assume jurisdiction In respect of the land which is excluded from operation of the Act by virtue of definiti...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Xith Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1163
J. C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel. Shri Vijay Bahadur holding brief of Shri Rajesh Srivastava. learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Is alsopresent.2. This is a petition challenging the order dated 17.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 1. rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner. It may be relevant to put the facts in brief. An application under Section 21 (1) (a), of the Act was moved by the landlord against the original tenant Kalka Prasad on the ground of bona fide need, and the same was rejected. An appeal was filed by the landlord against the said order and during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant Kalka Prasad died on 4.3.1992. His wife through her daughter as guardian was brought on record as the tenant of the accommodation in question. Appeal was allowed. Against this order the writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased-tenant before this Court was dismissed on 29th September, 1994. After dismissal of the writ petition, the son of the deceas...
Ashok Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1224
S. K. Phaujdar and J. C. Misra, JJ.1. The matter was heard yesterday, and, as directed, the order is being recorded today.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing an F.I.R. dated 17.12.1997 in case Crime No. 1005 of 1997, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, P. S. Kotwali, district Mirzapur, and for a consequential direction of protection against arresl of the petitioner in the instant case.3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Abhimanyu Dubey, Sub-Inspector of Police and officer in-charge of the Mandi Samiti outpost of P. S. Kotwali Katara, District Mirzapur. It was indicated in the F.I.R. that he and other police personnel had intercepted a truck of one Shanker Lal Kasera, which was being loaded with bags of fertilisers. The present petitioner was allegedly the driver of the said truck. In all 90 bags of fertiliser were recovered. Allegations of violation of the provisions of the Fertiliser Control Order were made.4. Two points were raised by th...
Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Banwari Lal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1338
D.K. Seth, J.1. The orders dated 25.7.1979 passed by the prescribed authority in a proceeding under U. P. Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, and the order dated 6.4.1981 passed by the learned District Judge in the appeal thereout being Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 1979, is being challenged by means of this writ petition. From the office note dated 7.2.1998. It appears that respondent No. 1 Sri Banwarilal had accepted notice. No one appears to oppose the said writ petition.2. Sri Lalji Slnha. learned counsel for the petitioner has led me through both the orders while translating the order of the prescribed authority. It appears from the order passed by the appellate authority that it had proceeded on the presumption that it was for the authority concerned to discharge the burden of proof. The entire order proceeded on the premise that the respondents had claimed that they were not occupying plot Nos. 539 and 543, it was for the petitioner to establish that the re...
Budhu Lal Alias Budh Ram (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. District Judge, All ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1499
J. C. Gupta. J.1. Since counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of finally.2. This is tenant's writ petition against the order dated 23.4.1982 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 6.9.1982 passed by respondent No. 1.3. The dispute relates to part of accommodation of House No. 51, Khushal Parvat, Allahabad, which is in the tenancy of the petitioner. The landlord, the respondent No. 3, moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the said accommodation on the ground that the house which is in occupation of the landlord is not sufficient to cater the need of his family members inasmuch as three rooms of the said house have fallen down and the landlord resides in a portion of the said house in its upper portion which comprises of only two small rooms, one small kitchen and a small store room while the tenanted accommodation consist of one room measuring 16' x 9' facing the lane in t...
Ved Pal Singh and Others Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1644
D.K. Seth, J.1. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioners were granted permits in the route Saharanpur-Shamli pursuant to the resolution dated 36.8.1997. The petitioners who are holding those permits (13 in number) allege that the said route was notified in favour of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, being the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to' as U.P.S.R.T.C. and S.T.U. respectively). Therefore, the temporary permits were issued within the scope and ambit of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By an order dated 21.11.1997, all those permits were cancelled. A copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said order, it was pointed out that the permits (13 in number) which were granted in terms of Section 104 of the Act were being cancelled on the ground that U.P.S.R.T.C. had obtained thirty permits on the said route for 120 single trips since the permits were granted subject to the ...
Mahesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. Xviiith Additional District Judge, Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1749
D.K. Seth, J.1. Suit No. 656 of 1997 was initiated before the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division. Allahabad by the petitioner against the private respondent Nos. 2 to 8 as defendant Nos. 1 to 7. In the suit, the following prayers were made :'(A) That the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 be restrained by means of permanent injunction from making any construction over the property in suit or from changing the nature of the suit property. (B) That the cost of the suit be allowed to the plaintiff against the defendants. (C) Any other relief which the Court deems fit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.' 2. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed on which an interim injunction was allowed on 17.12.1997. Against the said order, a Misc. Appeal No. 882 of 1997 was filed by the defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The appellate court had granted an interim order of stay of operation of the interim order granted by the learned trial court. Against the said interim order da...
Ashok Kumar Gaur Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ921All; (1998)3UPLBEC1980
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner was appointed at Manager (Finance) in U.P. Financial Corporation by order dated December 5, 1986 on the basis of certificate dated February 20, 1985 showing him as belonging to Scheduled Caste category. This certificate was issued by Tahsildar, Duddhi, District Mirzapur. Subsequently, it was found that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was not correct and he got employment on the basis of a forged certificate. Consequently, by the impugned order dated November 6, 1995, petitioner was dismissed from service, aggrieved by which this petition has been filed. It has also come on record that petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 822 of 1995 for declaration that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Gond) category. The suit, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is still pending. However, an application has been fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »