Allahabad Court February 2000 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.
Kamla Motors and Engineering Works Vs. I.B.P. Co. Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1102
O.P. Garg, J.1.The petitioner. M/s. Kamla Motors and Engineering Works, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of sale of Motor Spirit (for short 'MS'), High Speed Diesel (for short 'HSD') andlubricants. The firm entered into an agreement dated 21.12.1972 as a licensee of Indo-Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., which was subsequently taken over by the Government of India through Acquisition Act and is now called as IBP Co., Ltd., for sale of the aforesaid -products. The petitioner has a petrol pump at Bridh Ghat, Gorakhpur. A copy of the agreement dated 21.12.1972 containing the terms and conditions, on which both the parties have placed reliance, is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Clause 9 (e) of the agreement requires the petitioner :'to take every reasonable precaution against contamination of the products supplied by the company by water, dirt or other things injurious to their quality and not in any way directly or indirectly alter the company's standard quality of pr...
Rai Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000All298
ORDER1. The provision of security to very important persons and very very important persons, is complex one, which is being reviewed by the State Government from time to time on the basis of threat perception, which such persons are subjected to.2. Besides the above, the provision of security depends on many other factors, resources of the State, strength of the police personnel etc. In the recent times, the provision of the security to political personalities as well as Officers and other persons, have become a status symbol. A man without two gunners behind him, is considered to be a common or if he moves under the umbrella of the security then he is considered a distinguished and very important person. Whenever life of a person is under threat and he comes to the Court for providing him security, the Courts often direct the State Government to consider the perception of threat and thereafter pass appropriate orders.3. The petitioner, who is the Principal Secretary and whose wife is ...
Nathoo Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3850
M.C. Jain, J. 1. The accused-appellant-Nathoo has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated SIS'1980 passed by Sri Girish Chandra VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 419 of 1978, convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C. and awarding the sentence of life imprisonment.2. The broad spectrum of the prosecution case may be narrated. He allegedly committed the murder of his own uncle Champat Rai on 25-4-1977 at about 7.30 p.m. in village Bijamau, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly. The First Information Report was lodged by deceased's brother Jhamman Lal the same day at 10.30 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was three miles. Jhamman Lal, Champat Rai deceased and Ram Swarup (whose son the present accused-appellant is) were real brothers. There had been partition between these brothers in respect of agricultural land as well as Abadi property. Ram Swarup - father of the accused-appellant had even died abou...
Anand Babu @ Anand Swaroop Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Jalaun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC832
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.1989, passed byrespondent No. 1. allowing the appeal and rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for release of the disputed shop.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is landlord of the shop in question situate in Mohalla Baldeo Chowk, Town Oral, district Jataun of which respondent No. 3 was tenant who has died during the pendency of the writ petition and his heirs have been substituted. He filed application for release of the disputed shop against respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (fn short the Act) with the allegations that his family consists of himself, his wife, three sons and two daughters. His eldest son Pramod Kumar Gupta is unemployed and requires the disputed shop for opening a general merchant shop. The tenant-respondent owns a big double storied house situate in Mohalla Gopalganj at a ...
Managing Director, Unitech Limited Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1327; 2000(1)AWC834
A.K. Yog, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, (called 'The Act'). Claim petition was registered as M.A.C. No. 256 of 1997 : copy of the claim petition has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.2. Motor Claims Tribunal, Bijnor/VIIth Additional District Judge. Bijnor. has passed an order dated 13th December, 1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and thereby rejecting petitioner's Application (38 Ga) to decide the question whether the machine in question (Wheel-loader) is covered by the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' under the Act. According to the petitioner, wheel-loader, not being Motor Vehicle under the aforesaid Act. the Claim petition was not maintainable. Petitioner claims that this issue be decided as a preliminary issue before requiring him to tender evidence.3. Application paper No. 38G a (has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) was filed by petitioner/ Opposite party praying that in view of their defence in the written stat...
Radha Kisan Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC843
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, respondent No. 2, dated 20.1.1998, whereby he struck off the defence of the petitioner and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 17.2.1999, dismissing the revision against the said order.2. The petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises. Smt. Vidya Devi, the erstwhile owner, gave a notice dated 31.8.1990 to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent Rs. 575 for the period 19.9.1988 to 18.8.1990 at the rate of Rs. 25 per month and Rs. 106 towards house tax and water tax. The petitioner sent money order for Rs. 600 which was accepted by her. She filed Suit No. 150 of 1999 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioner had not paid the entire amount which included the house tax and water tax after service of the notice. He was defaulter and was liable for eviction. The summons was issued to the petitioner wherein 5.8.1991 was the date fixed ...
ishwar Chand Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/R.C.E.O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC841
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of vacancy dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 1.2. One Ram Sahodar was tenant of a portion of premises No. 12/470, Gwaltoli. Kanpur Nagar. He died in the year 1998. Respondent No. 2 applied for allotment with the allegations that as Prem Das, son of Ram Sahodar-the tenant, had purchased another portion of the same premises in the year 1986 and he is residing therein, the accommodation in question be treated as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Inspector. The Inspector submitted a report that Ishwar Chand, the petitioner, grandson of Ram Sahodar, was found in its possession. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the disputed accommodation be not treated as vacant.3. The petitioner filed objection stating that his father, Prem Das, had separated from his father, Ram Sahodar, in the year 1985 and had also purchased ...
Ved Prakash Sahu and Others Vs. Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority, Jhan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC846
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority-respondent No. 2 dated 13.1.1998 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that Bhagwan Das Sahu was a tenant of Shop Nos. 180 and 181 situate in Chaudhariyana, Jhansi. After his death, he was succeeded by his three sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Ashok Kumar died and he was succeeded by his widow Smt. Sandhya and son Sanjai Kumar. It was stated that he has three sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Awadh Kumar and Arvind Kumar. His...
Lalit Mohan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC874; (2000)2UPLBEC1070
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was appointed on ad hoc basis as Sales Point Supervisor in the Agriculture Department and posted in BabaganJ Block and given charge of Fatuhabad Seed Store, has come up with two fold prayers : (i) to quash the citation dated 22.12.1987 issued by the Assistant Collector and Tehsitdar. Tehsil Phulpur, district Allahabad as contained in Annexure 4 [wrongly mentioned in the prayer portion as the order dated 22.12.1987) asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 5.226.81 plus interest plus collection charges allegedly and (ii) to command the respondents not to adopt any coercive measure compelling him to pay the amount in question.2. Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar by Dr. R. G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the only moot question which arises and requires our answer is as to wheth...
Prahlad Singh and Another Vs. Niyaz Ahmad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1721
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition filed -under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiarari quashing the order dated 5.11.1997 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX. Rule 7, C.P.C. and the order dated 11.11.1999 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5.11.1997 has been dismissed by the Court below.3. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the respondent No. 1 filed a Suit No. 1245 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the petitioners and others. In the said suit 19.5.1994 was fixed for hearing. On the said date, only plaintiff-respondent appeared and the petitioner-defendant did not appear In the Court. The trial court consequently passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed 15.7.1994 for hearing. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »