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.
Allahabad Development Authority Vs. SaifuddIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1621
G.S.N. Tripathi and J.C. Gupta, JJ.1. In this appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had on 11.8.97 passed the following order :'The respondents, however, are entitled to their costs throughout. We,therefore, direct that the appeal shall stand restored. If the appellants payto the respondents a sum of Rs. 10,000 as costs throughout. This amountshall be paid within a period of four weeks from today, failing which theorder dated 30.6.1992 shall stand confirmed.' 2. Admittedly the time fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court expired on 8.9.97.3. It is again admitted that the money was not paid within that time. It is alleged that the money was tendered by the appellant. But that has been denied on oath by the respondents. There is no such evidence to believe the appellant and disbelieve the respondents on this point.4. It is said that the money was sent by the Money Order. The report of the Postman is dated 9.9.97 that the payees could not be contacted as they were not available. The money was thus...
Uma Shanker and Others Vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1779
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners had filed Original Suit No. 437 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aligarh against the defendants-opposite parties praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from realising a sum of Rs. 13,944.75 paise. The petitioners had filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from realising the said amount till the disposal of suit. By an order dated 9.12.1996, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Koil district Aligarh, had rejected the said prayer for temporary injunction. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997 was thereafter preferred. By an order dated 28.11.1997 passed by learned Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh the Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997 was dismissed and the order of learned Civil Judge dated 9.12.1996 was affirmed. Against these two orders the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed.2. The petitioners have only claimed stay in respect of r...
Pulak Bardhan and Another Vs. District Judge, Sonbhadra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1790
D.K. Seth, J.1. Shri S.D.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5.2.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonbhadra in Civil Revision No. 5 of 1998 on the ground that the said order is illegal, unjust and improper since it had taken a view that existence of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code precludes the civil court to grant an order of police aid for the purpose of maintaining its order of injunction granted by it. He points out from the said order that the learned court had come to the conclusion that the Civil Procedure does not provide grant of police aid in any of the provisions contained therein. He further contends that unless the police aid is not provided, the entire order granted' would become infructuous. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Court below to provide police aid to maintain its order. He relies in the case of Jaishi and others v. Saligram, AIR 1981 NOC 88 (HP) 40, in support of his contention tha...
L.P. Naithani Vs. Commandant/D.S.C. Railway Protection Force and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1863
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Shrl V. B. Singh and Shrl T. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3, who has filed a counter-affidavit, Sri Shashi Nandan who represents re spondent No. 4 and Sri M. D. Singh who represents the respondent No. 5 as well as Sri Ram Singh, who represents respondent No. 6.2. We have perused the writ petition and counter-affidavits. This case discloses a shocking State of affairs. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate of this Court and he went to Prayag railway station to receive his daughter who was arriving at Allahabad by Ganga Gomti Express from Lucknow on 22.4.1998. He had earlier telephoned to Prayag railway enquiry to know about the train's arrival time. Despite telephoning several times- no one responded. Thereafter the petitioner went to Prayag railway station and he made a complaint regarding non-receiving of telephone calls by the staff at the station. A copy of th...
Dharmendra Pal Singh and Others Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Mathura ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1998
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the land in dispute under Section 21 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') and the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 7.3.1998 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act against the petitioner claiming release of surplus land in Premises No. 14A Radha Nagar (Delbill Nagar). Mathura on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of an accommodation whose covered area was 676 sq. ft. and the total land was 5701 sq. ft. It was further alleged, that the surplus land was needed by her family to raise construction for which she had obtained permission from the Mathura-Vrtndaban Development Authority, Mathura.3. The petitioner contested the application that the landlady did not require the land t...
Ram Chandra Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2223
R.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The pivotal question involved in this petition for determination by the Court is as to whether an airman who was initially appointed in the indian Air Force for a term of 15 years, successfully completed the term of 15 years, thereafter was granted extension of six years and served for four years and 330 days in the extended period and thereafter who took discharge on transfer to pension establishment would be entitled to get benefits of ex-servicemen quota in the services of State Government of U. P.2. According to the petitioner, he joined indian Air Force as an Airman on 25.11.1974 for a term of 15 years which he completed on 24.11.1989. Thereafter he opted for extension of six years and after serving for 4 years and 330 days in the extended period, he took discharge on 20.10.1994 and thus the total service rendered by the petitioner in Air Force was 19 years 10 months 26 days. His work and conduct has been exemplary.3. Pursuant to an advertisement published in '...
Amit Kumar Sharma Vs. ViThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC490; II(1998)DMC608
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Mr. V. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, has raised a very Interesting question of law. According to him. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not postulate grant of maintenance to any person other than the wife of the husband. According to him, the very scheme of the Section indicates that the maintenance is available either to the wife or to the husband, as the case may be. according to the provisions contained therein. This cannot be stretched to grant maintenance in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the children.2. Secondly, he contended that the provision of Section 24 cannot be referred to for the purposes of obtaining maintenance for the mother-in-law of the respondent wife on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to him by no stretch of imagination, mother of the husband could be brought under the purview of Section 24 of the said Act filed by the wife for the purposes o...
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Patiala Flour M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC847
O.P. Garg, J.1. Shorn of all superfluities, the woodcut profile of the facts, leading to the present revision applications, which involve common questions of law and facts, and, they are, therefore, proposed to be decided together areas follows :2. The Patiala Flour Mills Company Ltd.. decree holder opposite party No. 1 filed Suit No. 83 of 1973 for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 18 April, 1966 by directing that the defendant-judgment debtor No. 1 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (for short 'UPSIDC'), which has come in revision before this Court, to transfer in favour of the plaintiff decree holder 80,000 equity shares of M/s. Modlpon Ltd. defendant judgment debtor No. 2 and to register the plaintiff decree holder asshareholder to the extent of the aforesaid shares in place of UPSIDC Ltd., and pay to the plaintiff decree holder all the dividends accruing on the aforesaid shares as also to allot the relevant bonus shares. Besides the aforesaid su...
Rajeet Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Vth A.D.J. Kanpur Dehat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All189
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. It is alleged that the petitioners as plaintiff instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 460 of 1992 in the Court of Additional Chief City Magistrate, Vth Court, Kanpur Dehat, against opposite parties Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 as defendants, for specific performance of contract for sale executed by the opposite party No. 3 (defendant No. 1) in favour of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 had executed sale-deed in respect of the selfsame property in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.2. Sri K.K. Nirkhi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 and accordingly application for compromise was filed before the trial Court. The learned trial Court by an order dated 16-3-1994 had rejected the said application for compromise. Against the said order the petitioner have preferred revision being Civil Revision No. 74 of 1994. By an order dat...
Rami Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR952]; (1999)IIILLJ875All; (1998)3UPLBEC2095
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of all the three writ petitions mentioned above as common question of fact and law is involved therein. However, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5742 of 1997 would be the leading petition.2. The main question involved in these petitions is as to what extent and how long the ad hocism in Government service will be tolerated The Government servants have legitimate expectations of their promotions. In case the promotions are not made on due dates, frustration creeps in resulting into inefficiency in the working. The ad-hocism or not appointing the eligible persons in accordance with Rules also produces arbitrariness. In this background these petitions will be disposed of.3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the leading petition is that he was appointed initially as Panchayat Sewak on November 9, 1972, and on January 29, 1979 he has promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and he was confirmed and regularised on the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »