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.
Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Others Vs. Additional District Judge, Maharaj ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC149
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners had instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 271 of 1997, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division against defendant opposite party No. 3 for injunction. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed for restraining the defendant from making construction in the disputed property. By an order dated 6.3.1998 the learned trial court has rejected the application for injunction. An appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1998, was preferred by the petitioners. By an order dated 24.3.1998, the learned Additional District Judge. Maharajganj had dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge. Against these two orders, the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.2. Mr. Swaraj Prakash. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below on merits had wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioners were not able to make out a prima facie ...
Parmeshwar Gond (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Iind Additional District Jud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC157
D. K. Seth, J.1. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 instituted Suit No. 1951 of 1958 before the Munsif. Deoria against the petitioner as defendant for injunction and demolition of Kuchha structure made by the defendant, on the alleged ground that the said opposite parties had purchased the said land by a registered deed of sale dated 29.8.1953, after which their names were so recorded as tenure-holders in respect of the said land. The suit was decreed on 7.9.1962 on contest. An appeal being Appeal No. 3667 of 1962 was filed by the petitioner against the said order. The appeal was dismissed on contest by an order dated 25.9.1968. The opposite parties decree holders levied Execution Case No. 67 of 1968 on 15.11.1968. In thesaid execution case, the petitioner-judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code on 12.9.1977. In the said objection, it was pleaded that the land being an agricultural land, it is subject to Section 122C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC337; 1998(3)AWC2018
Binod Kumar Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. The petitioner assails validity of the order dated 13.11.1987 passed in Misc. Case No. 64 of 1984 of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun as contained in Annexure-III. Perusal of the impugned order shows that a review was sought for by the petitioner of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. The maintainability of the review application filed by the writ-petitioner was also challenged by the claimant as not maintainable but the prayer was rejected on the ground that it is without any merit.2. We wanted to know from Sri Rajeshji Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder contains any provisions for review to which he answered that neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act contains such a provision.3. It is a settled law that appeal/revision or review are creation of statute. No litigant has got an inheren...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bimla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ613
B.K. Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. The petitioner assails validity of the order dated 13.11.1987 passed in Misc. Case No. 64 of 1984 by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, as contained in Annexure III. Perusal of the impugned order shows that a review was sought for by the petitioner of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. The maintainability of the review application filed by the writ-petitioner was also challenged by the claimant as not maintainable but the prayer was rejected on the ground that it is without any merit.2. We wanted to know from Mr. Rajesh Verma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder contain any provision for review to which he answered that neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act contain such a provision.3. It is a settled law that appeal/revision or review are the creation of statute. No litigant has got an inherent righ...
Lalsen Tripathi Vs. Ivth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC146
D. K. Seth, J.1. Mr. C. P. Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised very intricate but interesting question of law while supporting the petitioner's contention arising out of the present writ petition.2. By an order dated 26th March, 1998, passed by the learnedCivil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in O. S. No. 608 of 1997, the further proceedings of the said suit was stayed on the basis of a notification dated 23rd June, 1997. issued under Section 3 as a Relief Undertaking under U. P. Industrial Undertakings (Special Provisions for Prevention of Unemployment) Act, 1966.3. According to Mr. Ghildyal, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, proceedings relating thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, Officer or Authority shall accordingly be stayed or be continued subject to such modification, so however, that on the notification ceasing to have effect, all rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities so suspended or modified shall revive or r...
Magan Lal Chaturvedi Vs. District Judge, Mathura and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1854
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division. IVth Court, Mathura In Original Suit No. 598 of 1987, holding ' Issue Nos. 2 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed by an order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Mathura. In Civil Revision No. 215 of 1997. The said two issues which were decided as preliminary issue involved the question as to whether the suit was barred by reason of Section 331 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These two issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff holding thatthe suit was not barred by Section 331 of the Act and the suit is maintainable before the civil court.2. Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land was not residential plot and was in fact agricultural plot, therefore, the dispute Involved in the suit is barred by pr...
Ram Autar Garg (Decd) Through Lrs Vs. General Manager (Personal Divisi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1833; (1999)ILLJ1294All
M.L. Singhal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.6.1988 (Annexure-23), passed by the Deputy General Manager (East U. P. Zone). Punjab National Bank, Lucknow (respondent No. 2), removing Shri Ram Autar Garg (since deceased) from service, and order dated 25.12.1988 (Annexure-24), passed in appeal by the General Manager (Personal Division). Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal.2. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner Ram Autar Garg died, hence his widow, his daughters and sons, as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, have been brought on the record, A Division Bench of this Court hearing the writ petition, on 28.10.1996 dismissed the writ petition observing that since the petitioner has died, the petition does not survive. The heirs of the deceased carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Smt. Ush...
C.N. Thapliyal Vs. Director of Higher Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: (2000)2UPLBEC1831
R.R.K. Trivedi and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. In this writ petition, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to filecounter affidavit on 9.5.97. By order dated 26th March, 1998, further time was granted to file counter affidavit by stop order but no counter affidavit has beenfiled. Petitioner has filed an affidavit of service showing, service of notice onrespondent No. 4. No body has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.In the circumstances narrated above, learned Counsel for the parties have agreedthat this writ petition may be decided finally at this stage.3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner C.N. Thapliyal was serving as lecturer in D.A.V. (PG) College, Dehradun. His date of birth mentioned in the service record was 1st July, 1933, according to which petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation on 30th June, 1993. However, petitioner continued to serve the inst...
Bundelkhand University Vs. District Consumer Forum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC1963
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and its granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.2. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date.3. List in the second week of July, 1998.4. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Jhansi, dated 20.3.1998 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) in which it has been held that holding of an examination is a service and hence, the matter is cognizable by the Consumer Forum. The respondent No. 2 was a student of B.Sc. III year at Vipin Bihari Degree College, Jhansi and he was declared failed in the examination of B.Sc III year. He filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi, the respondent No. 1, in which he prayed for summoning of the answer copy and declaration of his result. The petitioner filed a preliminary objection against the maintainabi...
Bankey Bihar Vs. Surya NaraIn Alias Munnoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1616
A.K. Banerji, J.1. Second Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 14.11.1980 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur by which the said Court had allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 104 of 1976 against the defendant for cancellation of a gift deed dated 11.4.1969 executed by Purshottam Dass in favour of the defendant to the extent of 1/3rd share in the house in dispute. The plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers and sons of the said Purshottam Dass, The plaintiff also sought possession over a portion of the house described in the plaint. If not found in possession, and also prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the portion of the housespecified in the sketch map annexed to the plaint. The plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »