Allahabad Court May 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.
Ganga Ram Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2015
D. K. Seth, J.1. Original Suit No. 625 of 1975 was instituted before the Munsif, Muzaffarnagar for specific performance of a contract by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-petitioner. The suit was decreed on 30th September. 1980. After the decree became final, an execution was levied. Execution Case No. 32 of 1984 was registered thereupon. In the said execution process, a draft deed was prepared and submitted to the Court for approval. The judgment debtor objected to one of the clauses being incorporated in the draft deed. The objection was overruled by an order dated 24th March, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Muzaffarnagar in said Execution Case No. 32 of 1984. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 1998. It was partly allowed by an order dated 21.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, Muzaffarnagar. It is this order which has since been challenged in the present writ petition.2. Km. Usha K...
Raj Kumar Contractors, Ghaziabad Vs. Bareilly Development Authority, B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2344
A.K. Banerji, J.1. By means of this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act in short), the applicant M/s. Raj Kumar Contractors, through its partner Shri Raj Kumar Wadhwa (applicant in short) has prayed for appointment of arbitrator/arbitrators as provided in the arbitration clause in the contract entered into between the parties.2. The case of the applicant is that it is a partnership firm which undertakes building construction work on contract. It entered into an agreement dated 20.1.96 with the respondents for the construction of Middle Income Group and Low Income Group houses in Nehru Enclave Scheme in Saidpur Hawkins, Bareilly at the site to be provided by the respondents. The work was to commence by 25.1.96 and was to be completed by 24.10.96. According to the applicant, a work order was issued to the applicant and mobilization advance of Rs. 13,56,652 by means of a cheque dated 24.1.96 was also given. Despite the letter dated ...
Daddan Singh and ors. Vs. Sri Dev NaraIn Singh Junior High School (Now ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)1UPLBEC610
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The petitioners who were working as Assistant Teachers in Shri Dev Narain Singh Junior High School, Pakarpur, District Sultanpur have assailed the order dated 27-9-79 passed by the Manager of the said school terminating their services from the date of the order. They were directed to deposit the tuition fee which they had collected and thereafter one month's salary would be paid to them.2. The writ petition was admitted ton 19-3-80. On 16th August, 1994 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of with certain observations. Thereafter a review petition was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 3rd September, 1996, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order ;-'We are of the view that this is a fit case in which the order dated 27-1-86 should be reviewed because not only the High Court but also this Court proceeded on the basis that the Act applicable was the ...
ilam Chand and Another Vs. Mam Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1814
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Harsh Narain Sharma, learned counsel for therevisionists. None appeared for the opposite party (defendant).2. Revisionists filed Suit No. 2 of 1981 for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell certain plots of land for a sum of Rs. 66,000. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-opposite party moved an application for amendment of the written statement which was allowed. The defendant had taken a plea that the plots of land in respect of which there was an agreement to sell between the parties had been allotted to some other person during consolidation proceedings and, therefore, no decree for specific performance of contract could be passed. After such amendment was carried out in the written statement, the revisionists-plaintiffs moved application for amendment of the plaint as contained in Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed with the present revision application. In the amendmentapplication, the revisionists all...
iksha Shanker Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1817; [1998(79)FLR870]
S.R. Singh, J.1. By the order, impugned herein the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Assistant Commissioner (Khadya Evam Rasad), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The suspension has been ordered, inter alia on the charge of the petitioner being in connivance with black marketeers and his consequential failure to take effective action against them. Legality of theimpugned order has been challenged on two distinct grounds. Firstly, that the authority which passed the impugned order of suspension was not competent to order suspension of the petitioner and secondly, that the order suffers from the vice of mala fide.2. In the short counter-affidavit filed by Sri. R. K. Dwivedi, Assistant Food Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur it has been alleged that the Commissioner. Food and Civil Supplies, U. P., Lucknow has passed a general order dated 13th August, 1997 by which a limited power to suspend a Supply Inspector has been delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, Food a...
Sabir HussaIn and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2054
D. K. Seth, J.1. In Original Suit No. 279 of 1993. the plaintiff sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,000 pursuant to a bond executed by the defendant. The bond was sought to be admitted In evidence. Admittedly the bond was insufficiently stamped. The trial court by its order dated 30.5.1995 passed an order under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act requiring the plaintiff to pay the duty as well as penalty for the purpose of admission of document in evidence as provided in clause (a) of Section 35 of the said Act. A revision was preferred being Civil Revision No. 57 of 1995, against the said order. By an order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IIIrd Court. Bareilly, the revision was dismissed and the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge. (Senior Division), IIIrd Court, Bareilly, was affirmed. It is this order which has since been challenged in this petition.2. Mr. M. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 29 requires the...
Shamim Ahmad and Others Vs. Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2130; II(1998)DMC703
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 26.9.1996 passed in Suit No. 573 of 1995 by the Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh had allowed the application for maintenance filed by one Anjum and others. This order has been challenged by Shamim Ahmad and two others alleging that they are bona fide purchaser of the house belonging to the husband Shabbir Ahmad without notice. Therefore, part of the order dated 26.9.1996, by which the said property purchased by the petitioners has been charged for maintenance allowance, is wholly void anddoes not bind the petitioner. He has accordingly filed an objection which Is Annexure-4 to the writ petition before the Family Court after the decree was passed but the same has not yet been decided. On the other hand, the execution court has been directed to be proceeded with. In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs :'(i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26.9.1996 in so far as the p...
Rajendra Singh Gandhi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1864
B.K. Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. Two-fold prayers have been made by the petitioners in this writ petition : (i) to quash the order dated 14.10.97 as contained in Annexure-10 by grant of writ of certiorari, (ii) to command respondent No. 2 to refund to them the amount of Rs. 10,62,250 as security and the excess amount of Rs. 3,45,083 deposited by them.2. Their case is that on 21st April. 1995 respondent No. 2 held an auction of mining-area in which they participated ; that their offer of Rs. 1,27,47,000 was the highest in relation to group Aa of revenue area, which was accepted by respondent No. 2 ; that they also accepted the terms and conditions and deposited Rs. 62,250 as security and Rs. 10.62.250 as first instalment on 21st April, 1995 itself ; that a lease-deed was executed on 5.6.95, which was registered on 1.7.95 and was handed over to them on 11.7.95 ; that in order to carry out the mining operations and transportation of the minerals respondent No. 2 on 24.9.95 issued MM-11 in te...
Ram Saran Singh Vs. District Judge, Ghazipur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC2132
D.K. Seth, J.1. In a suit for partition upon an application for interim order, the trial court had directed that half of the rent realised out of the property on which admittedly commercial complex had been constructed to be given to theplaintiff and half to the defendant. An appeal having been preferred against the said order, the appellate court had directed to deposit the entire rental income in Court. These are orders dated 9th February, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Suit No. 70 of 1995 and the order dated 24th March. 1998 passed by the learned District Judge. Ghazipur in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1998, have been challenged in this writ petition.2. Mr. Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the properties involved in the partition suit being the present one is of agricultural and in respect whereof notification under Section 4 (2) had been issued and the final publication had not yet been made. Therefore, by virtue of Section 5 (2), ...
Ranveer Singh Vs. District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2134
D.K. Seth, J.Through a notice dated 30.11.1995 proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 4 of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1952, being Case No. 9 of 1995. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 22.7.1997 had passed order of eviction against the petitioner. An appeal being Misc, Appeal No. 17 of 1996, was preferred by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By an order dated 18th December, 1997 the said appeal was dismissed affirming the order dated 22.7.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Tehri in Case No. 9 of 1995. This order has been challenged in this petition.2. Sri Anurag Blsaria, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that similar proceeding under Section 4 of the said Act was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the self same property which was dismissed in default. But the respondents did not apply for restoration and setting aside of the order dismissing the proceeding in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »