Allahabad Court March 2000 Judgments
Shanker Lal Vs. Ram Sewak and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1615
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.9.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3, whereby he allowed application filed by Ram Sewak respondent No. 1. for restoration of possession of the disputed premises.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Acf) against Ram Kumar, respondent No. 2. alleging that the disputed shop is in a dilapidated condition and is needed by him. The application was contested by Ram Kumar. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 25.4.1987. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the District Judge. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on 8.9.1990 and directed the eviction of respondent No. 2. He filed Writ Petition No. 7747 of 1990. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.4.1990. Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Dutt Pandey Vs. Vith Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1624
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order whereby the disputed accommodation has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 4.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of petitioner, was tenant of the first floor portion of House No. 112/364-C, Swamp Nagar, Kanpur, of which Smt. Krishna Devi. respondent No. 3, is the land-lady. He was transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow in the year 1971. In the year 1976, an application for allotment was filed by respondent No. 4 on the ground that as father of the petitioner had been transferred from Kanpur, the disputed accommodation should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report, stating that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of the petitioner, was transferred from Kanpur in the year 1971, and, on that ground, disputed accommodation be declared as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Off...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Special Judge, Allahabad and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1664
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.1994 passed by the prescribed authority releasing the disputed shop under Section 21(1)(b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order of the appellate authority dated 31.7.1995 affirming the said order in appeal.2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act with the allegations that they had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner of the property under a registered deed on 9.9.1988. The petitioners were already tenants and after the purchase of the property they were tenants of the respondents. The disputed premises was constructed 100 years ago and was in a dilapidated condition. It requires demolition and reconstruction. They have got a plan prepared as contemplated by Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act and have sufficient financial capacity to reconstruct the same.3. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamji Pandey and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3856
M.C. Jain, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14-4-1980 passed by Sri B.B. Agarwal, the then IInd Additional Session Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1979. We propose to decide both these appeals by this common judgment, treating Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 1980 as the leading appeal. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 1980 are Shyamji Pandey, Baijnath and Vijai. The appellants in another Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 1980 are Bhaiya Lal, Mithai alias Mithau, Ganesh alias Ganesu, Gopal alias Gopali and Chander. All of them have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Bhaiya Lal, Mithai alias Mithau, Ganesh alias Ganesu and Gopal alias Gopali have further been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. Baijnath, Shyamji Pandey, Chander and Vijay have further been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year' ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4956
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by four appellants, namely Shri Krishna, Siya Ram, Ram Bilas and Suraj Ram against the judgment and order dated 24-4-1980 passed by Sri Sachhidanand, the then Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1979, convicting each of them under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the said offence. Out of the four appellants, Shri Krishna and Suraj Ram died during the pendency of the appeal as per report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. Therefore, the appeal abates in respect of them. Presently, we are concerned only with the remaining two appellants, namely, Siya Ram and Ram Bilas.2. Salient features of the prosecution case may be set forth. The incident took place on 16-8-79 at about 6 a.m. in village Bhiraur, Police Station Mau Darwaza, District Farrukhabad. The first information report was lodged by an eye witness, namely, Bhoomi Raj, PW 1 (brother of t...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Varshney and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1674
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted one months' time to file counter-affidavit. List in the week commencing 8th May. 2000.2. Against the impugned order of the Deputy Collector dated 3.2.2000 passed under Section 33 of the Stamp Act admittedly a revision lies to the Commissioner under Section 56 of the Act. Hence ordinarily, we would have relegated the petitioner to his alternative remedy.3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a revision cannot be filed by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner because the lawyers in the Meerut Commissionery are on strike and they are not permitting any judicial work to be done.4. It has come to our notice that in about half of the District Courts In the State of U. P., the lawyers are on strike for about a month and they are not permitting any judicial authority to work. This is deeply regrettable and highly objectionable. The Judiciary exists for serving the people and n...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Spinning Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Tripathi and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1730; [2000(86)FLR12]; (2000)IILLJ1062All
N. K. Mitra, C.J.1. The Special Appeal in hand is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1995 of the learned single Judge in dull civil. Writ Petition No. 18277 of 1987, N. K. Tripathi v. M/s. U. P. State Spinning Mills Company (No. 2) Limited, Unit-1, district Jaunpur through its Manager, Administration and another, whereby the learned single Judge 'set aside' the order dated 11.5.1987 impugned in the writ petition whereby the services of the petitioner-respondent were terminated by the appellant-employer with immediate effect as 'no longer required', by giving a month's salary in lieu of the notice period.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner-respondent Nawal Kishore Tripathi was appointed Assistant Mill Engineer in the Jaunpur Unit of the Mill on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,200 plus allowances mentioned in the appointment order dated 1.9.1986 which contained a stipulation that the services were purely temporary and liable to be terminated without assigning any rea...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Products Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas841(All); 2000CriLJ17
S. Harkauli, J. 1. Heard Sri R. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Bachan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.2. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed today which may be kept on record. This supplementary affidavit contains a copy of the substance of the circular as reported in the Government publication.3. The petitioner's company is known as 'Kothari Products Limited'. The company markets certain edible items and one of the registered trade marks used by the petitioner's company is 'Parag'. The trade mark 'Parag' is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Act, since the year 1986.4. Another trade mark which is not material here is 'Pan Parag' and which has been used as registered trade mark by the petitioner's company since 1975.5. Section 20 of the Companies Act, reads as under :'20. (1) No company shall be registered by a name, which, in the opinion of the Central Government, is undesirable. (2) Without prejudice to the generality...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR448]; (2000)3UPLBEC1904
Bhagawan Din, J.1. The order dated 22.8.1997 passed by Deputy Cane Commissioner, Eastern Zone, Gorakhpur, terminating the services of the petitioner is under challenge in the writ petition on the grounds that it is arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice.2. The petitioner was appointed by Cane Commissioner, U.P. as a Jeep Driver under his order dated 2.6.1977 and posted him to work in the office of Beej Utpadan Adhikari, Basti. After a few years of his services, service book was prepared, wherein, entries in respect with his work and conduct were made. In the year 1994 a State level gradation list of the drivers working in the Sugar Cane Department, was prepared. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 33 in this gradation list. On the basis of the remarks made in the service book of the petitioner, he was allowed to cross efficiency bar on 2.7.1997. His salary was thereafter fixed on 1.1.1997 at Rs. 1175/- p.m. All of sudden without any reason or the cause, the Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Nath Mani Tripathi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3882
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. Appellants Paras Nath Mani, Hare Ram Tiwari, Chandra Bhooshan Mani alias Tilaku and Shailesh Pandey have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Section 364, I.P.C. They have been convicted by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria on 30-11-1997 and have been sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment each.2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and in detail.Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 24-5-1984 at about 6.30 a.m. all the four appellants came to the house of PW 2 Krishna Kumar Mani Tiwari (Informant of this case) in Mohalla Ram Nath, Deoria P.S. Kotwali Deoria, Smt. Sushila PW 1 is the wife of the informant. Appellant Chandra Bhooshan Mani alias Tilaku called the deceased Umesh Mani Tiwari alias Raju for witnessing a match. Umesh Mani Tiwari was the only son of the informant and Smt. Sushila Mani. According to the prosecution case at about 8 a.m. on 24-5-1984 all the four appellants along with Umesh Mani Tiwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »