Allahabad Court May 1999 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.
Behair Lal Agrawal and Another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2358
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated27.8.1997, allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short 'the Act') and the order of the appellate authority, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal on 13.10.1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the landlord-respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the shop situated in a portion of premises No. 27/101. Jawahar Square, Meerganj. Allahabad against the petitioners who are its tenants on the averments that in a portion of the same building No. 27/101 Jawahar Square, Meerganj, Allahabad a partnership business of sale of sarees, suitings and shirtings. etc. is being carried on in the name and style of 'M/s. Sarce Nagar' by Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal. in the Doochatti of the ...
Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. Vice-chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1999
Reported in: AIR1999All309
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The orders dated 15-4-1999 and 12-4-1999 being Annexures 3 and 9 issued by the Registrar of the M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and Vice-Chancellor of the same University respectively are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.2. Before Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner opened the case Mr. P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents had took two preliminary objection. First that there was no ordinances of the University and the alleged ordinances, on which reliance has been placed to support the case of the petitioner, does not exist, so there is no question of any cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. He secondly contended that, as pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 3, the writ petition has been sought to be moved as a public interest litigation, whereas the relief claimed on the basis of the facts pleaded it shows that it was in effect a relief personal to the petitioner No. 2 which is being sought ...
Smt. Maya Thapa Vs. Basic Education Officer, Dehradun and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1900; (1999)2UPLBEC1268
V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The petitioner, the seniormost teacher has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Dehradun, according approval to therecommendation of the selection committee for appointing respondent No. 2 as head mistress.2. There is no dispute that when the post of head mistress fell vacant on 30.6.1993, the Committee of Management invited application by publication in the newspapers having wide circulation. A duly constituted selection committee recommended the name of respondent No. 2. The petitioner did not apply for it. She claimed that she being the senior most teacher was entitled to be promoted. The Education Superintendent cancelled the selection on 14.10.1997, but the District Basic Education Officer granted approval on 29.12.1997 to the selection of respondent No. 2.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri L. P. Naithani argued that once the selection was cancelled by the Education Superintendent...
Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1911
O.P. Garg, J.1. Heard Sri R. C. Srivastava, assisted by Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standingcounsel.2. The petitioner was declared elected as Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika Parishad, Konch on 27.1.1995. The respondent No. 2, Dr. Avadh Behari filed a petition to challenge the election of the petitioner under the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said petition is pending before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Oral. The petitioner filed a written statement. Besides him. the Returning Officer has also filed a written statement. Issues have been framed in the case. Learned Additional District Judge has decided the Issue Nos. 6. 7. 8 and 9 as preliminary issues by a composite order dated 23.3.1999. The petitioner had also filed an application with the prayer that the election petition be dismissed under Order VII. Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. on the ground of non-complianc...
Shiv Kumar, Mukhya Arakshi Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2158; (1999)2UPLBEC1218
V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can be dismissed from service under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution without holding any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was a permanent constable appointed in the year 1981 in P.A.C. A First Information Report was lodged by one Shiv Kumar Gupta against the petitioner and one Shamim Ahmad under Section 352/504/506, I.P.C at Police Station, Soraon, Allahabad being Case Crime No. 352 of 1993 and 353 of 1993. The allegation made in the First Information Report was that the petitioner along with Shamim Ahmad threatened the complainant Shiv Kumar Gupta not to do pairvi in the case against his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi pending in Family Court, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police. Allahabad on 17.8.1993 dismissed the petitioner from service under the second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The ...
Ram Gopal Shukla Vs. Chairman, Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd., N ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2163; (1999)2UPLBEC1211
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner is claiming employment on the ground that his land was acquired by the respondents. The godown on the acquired land was constructed in 1979 it is alleged by Mr. B. S. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner that since 1979, he had been making representations and the respondents have been assuring the petitioner of giving appointment, but ultimately no appointment having been given, a writ petition bearing number 33713 of 1998 was moved. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 24th October, 1998 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. By the order dated 4th January, 1999, the representation was rejected. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Pandey contends that by reason of the eligibility of the petitioner, the petitioner should be given appointment right from 1979 as has been prayed for in the writ petition in prayer...
Dr. Mahendra Pal Vs. Collector, Hardoi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2398
R.H. Zaidi, J.1.By means of this petition under Article 326 of theConstitution of India, petitioner nitially prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certtorari quashing the notices dated 1.7.1997 and 14.7.1997 issued to convene the meeting of Kshetriya Samiti, Tandiyana, Tehsil and district Hardoi for consideration of no-confidence motion against the jetitioner. Prayers for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to hold meeting on 3.8.1997 and to allow the petitioner to work as Block Pramukh, were also made. Subsequently, by means of amendment allowed on 16.10.1997. prayer for quashing the proceedings of the meeting and motion of no confidence passed on 3.8.1997 was also added.2. It appears that against the petitioner who happened to be Block Pramukh of Kshetriya Samiti, Tandiyana Block, district Hardor as many as 35 members out of 63 gave a notice to the Collector, to convene meeting for consideration of no-confidence mo...
Raghuraj Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3759
1. The three appellants stood a trial in S. T. No. 79 of 1979 and were convicted by an order of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 12-12-1980. All were sentenced to life imprisonment for their conviction under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., as also for R. I, for one year for their conviction under Sections 403/34, I.P.C. the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal was admitted on 15-12-80 and the appellants were directed to be released on.bail and they were so released. The case against them was initiated on an F.I.R. lodged at 9 p.m. on 25-12-78 at police station Sumerpur, in the district of Hamirpur, by one Smt. Sukh Rani wife of Binda Singh. She had named all the three present appellants in the F.I.R. and had stated that at about noon on that date the informant and others had gone to the place where bricks were being prepared. They had gone to keep a watch on the work. At about 5 p.m. Babuiya son of the informant along with Mustaq Tongawala and Mukhkhu came...
Ram Gopal and Others Vs. Vlth Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1859
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Original Suit No. 456 of 1980 was filed by one Drikpal Singh (plaintiff/respondent No. 2) against Smt. Lalti, Ram Jiwan defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present petition) and Ram Copal, Madan Gopal, Ashok Kumar, defendant Nos. 3. 4 and 5 (present petitioners) in the Court of Munsif, Fatehpur seeking decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.10.1980, damages for demolishing plaintiff's house, decree for possession against defendants along with cost of the suit and other ancillary reliefs. In the plaint. (Annexure-7 to the petition) plaintiff asserted that he had become owner of the property under compromise decree filed in another Suit No. 353 of 1978 (para 12 of the plaint). Defendant No. 1, who was originally allowed to occupy property in question as licensee, became dishonest and with intention to inflict harm to the plaintiff maliciously executed fictitious sale deed dated 16.10.1980 in favour of the de...
Nand Lal Vs. Vith Additional District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1906
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This is the tenant's writ petition against the orders dated 6.3.1999 and 16.1.1996 in proceeding under Section 21 (1A) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short).FACTS 2. Sri Keshav Prasad Srivastava (respondent No. 3) (the landlord in short) is the owner and landlord of the building, i.e., House No. A-6/14-15 situate in Mohalla Mukeemganj, district Varanasi. There are five tenants in the house in dispute. Nandlal. Ramesh Kumar. Ram Chandra and Swami Nath are the tenant of one shop each. One Bhagwan Das is the tenant in the first and second floor of this building. This Js the residential portion. The tenancies in respect of five persons are separate ; though it is admitted that they are in one building. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against all five tenants for the release of respective portions on the ground of personal need. Subsequently the application was amended ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »