Allahabad Court April 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.
Minni Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Hardoi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1239
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.1.1981 whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and order dated 30.7.1983 whereby the revisional court had dismissed the revision.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner who is admittedly the landlady of the building in question sent a notice dated 7.6.1979 to the respondent No. 3 through her counsel Shri Fasahat Husain, Advocate demanding the arrears of rent from March, 1978 to May, 1979 and also terminating his tenancy. On receipt of notice, the respondent No. 3 gave reply to the petitioner controverting the facts stated in the notice and stating that the amount of rent in question was remitted by money order to the counsel of the petitioner, named a...
Juggilal Vs. District Judge, Bahraich and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1714
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13.11.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 directing for the inspection and recounting of votes and declaring respondent No. 3 as duly elected Pradhan of the village as well as order dated 23.1.1996 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 13.11.1995.2. Facts of the case as set out in the writ petition, in brief are that the petitioner contested the election for the post of Pradhan of village Thailiya, Pargana Phakharpur, Tahsil Mahsi, district Bahraich. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were also candidates for aforesaid post and in the said election. The election was held on 16.4.1995, and votes were counted on 19.4.1995. Petitioner having secured highest number of votes, i.e., 502 votes as agai...
Bharat Lal Tewari and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ288
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1980 passed by Sri J. P. Singh, the then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 270 of 1978 (State v. Bachchan Singh and Anr.), whereby he convicted Bharat Lal Tewari accused-appellant of the offence under Section 302, IPC and Bachchan Singh accused-appellant of the offence under Sections 302/109, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The deceased in the present case is Suresh Chandra Yadav. The informant in this case is Desh Raj Yadav, father of Suresh Chandra Yadav, deceased; Bachchan Singh accused-appellant was editor of a local newspaper 'Deshdoot' and Bharat Lal accused-appellant was an employee in the same newspaper. Bhagauti Prasad Singh co-accused was the Sarhu of Bharat Lal Tewari accused-appellant (husband of his wife's sister i.e. their wives were real sisters inter se).3. In House No. 51, Colonelganj, Allahabad, there were several portions, Shitala Pra...
Samtal Color Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998LC266(Allahabad); 2000(116)ELT27(All)
ORDER1. This is a second Writ Petition by the petitioner M/s. Samtal Color Ltd. The first one was numbered as Writ Petition No. 120 of 1998 on which this Court passed orders on 2-3-1998.2. The prayer in this Writ Petition does not appear to be much different than the first one. Regard being had to the submissions made in this Petition, one aspect before the Court is that the affidavit in a matter like this ought to have been filed by a responsible person, in reference to a Public Limited Company at least by the Company Secretary or the person authorised and Incharge of Finances.3. The petitioner has received a Memorandum from the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-V, Div. III, Ghaziabad dated 15-4-1998. The petitioner Company has been advised that if it fails to produce the stay order for recovery or fails to deposit the amount, as has been assessed, in reference to the context, within the specified time then auction will be initiated against the petitioner Company under the Central...
Atar Singh Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1233
N. S. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri Atar Singh, tenant-petitioner has sought to quash the orders dated 15.12.86 and 26.9.88 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) Delegatory Authority, Meerut and the then VIIth Addl. District Judge. Meerut, whereby a portion of the house in dispute situate in Vijai Nagar. Meerut was released in favour of the landlord respondent Kulwant Singh.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that the petitioner was earlier a tenant of the ground floor of the house in question of the landlord-respondent is not disputed before this Court. It appears that on a petition being moved by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for the eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the ground floor of the house in question, it was ordered by the prescribed authority on 12.8.S1 that the petitione...
Smt. Kanta Devi and Others Vs. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1518
J. C. Gupta, J.1. All these writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings and hence taken up together and since counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged, they are disposed of finally by this common order.2. In Writ Petition No. 17432 of 1997, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 5.1.1996 and 4.4.97 (Annexures-'8' and '10' respectively to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.3. Facts relevant may be stated in brief. The dispute relates to a shop. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of this writ petition, namely Jai Klshan and Arun Kumar (for convenience sake to be referred as J.A.) came into occupation of the disputed shop on 19.6.85 under a lease deed executed between them and the landlord, but admittedly without any allotment order in their favour by the District Magistrate. Since provisions of U. P. Act No. XITI of 1972 (briefly, the Act) were applicable, vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R. C. & E. O.) by his order dat...
Shital Singh (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1889
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.12.1982 declaring 37 bighas, 17 biswas and 4 biswansis as surplus land of the petitioner and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal against the said order on 28.4.1983 and the review application against the said order on 27.9.1983.2. A notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the petitioner whereby 37 bighas, 9 biswas and 4 biswansis of land of the petitioner was proposed to be declared as surplus land. The petitioner filed objection against the notice. He sought exclusion of the area which he sold on 26.10.1971 to Smt. Virmati, Smt. Shanti Devi and Mst. Durga in respect of 27 Kachcha Bighas of land. It was further alleged that Plot No. 262 was unirrigated and a portion of Plot No. 104 was grove land. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Auth...
St. Jones School Vs. Spl. Judge, E.C. Act and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1995
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. 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 14.1.1998 passed by Special Judge [B.C. Act), acting as revisional court.2. It appears that petitioner who is the tenant of the building in question deposited amount of rent from 1.7.86 to 31.8.91 on 10.9.91 in the Court of Munsif under Section 30 of the Act in Case No. 171 of 1991 and prayed for permission to continue to deposit the rent in the Court. The respondent No. 2 objected to and opposed the application filed by the petitioner. The trial court (Munsif) by his judgment and order dated 11.2.1995 allowed the application ; but only for the period ending on 31.12.93 without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The application filed by the petitioner for depositing the amount of rent under Section 30 for permission to deposit the amount of rent was rejected for the period commenc...
Suresh Chandra Vs. Ivth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaff ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1886
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard.2. This is tenant's writ petition, Landlord's application moved under Section 2! (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 Iheretnafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 19.5.1994, which order has been confirmed by the appellate authority in its order dated 27.3.98. Both the Courts below have found concurrently that the building under tenancy of the petitioner is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act have also been complied with by the landlord as par the findings recorded by the Courts below.3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Courts below that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition is erroneous inasmuch as there is no specific finding that the building is beyond repairs and in the absence of such a finding, the building could not be held to ...
Arjun Singh and Others Vs. Additional Secretary, Board of High School ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1290; (1998)3UPLBEC2166
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner's result was cancelled for using unfair means through spot inquiry. Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of cancellation was that the petitioner had answered question No, 2 (Gha) in Mathematics II Paper, without necessary calculation, which is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.2. Sri Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the cancellation was made after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no illegality in the process for cancellation oi the result. The writ court cannot interfere in such a matter unless matter appears to be perverse.3. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Regional Officer, Madhyainik SttikshaParishad, Bareiffy, 1989 (1) UPLBEC 798, in support of his contention that result cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of suspicion, as in the present case that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »