Allahabad Court May 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.
Baij Nath Vs. Vishwanath Pandey and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2213
D.K. Seth, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1984, passed by the Learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 136, of 1983, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.3.1983, passed by the learned Munslf, Moham-madabad Gonna. Azamgarh in the Original Suit No. 767 of 1981, partly allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the land shown by letters 'Ka, Kha, Ta, Tha' in map 15A which was made part of the decree.2. The plaintiff-respondents had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that by virtue of partition between the ancestors, the parties were occupying different part of the property and had constructed their respective houses thereon in between the two houses, the land was claimed as Sehan, Courtyard with a thatched hut of the plaintiffs' house, which ...
Hari Das Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2000All279; (2000)2UPLBEC1674
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of a fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Badagaon, Block Jaitpur, Kahan, District Agra according to the Government Order dated 30th July, 1990. On the basis of certain allegations against him, the petitioner was asked to show cause by an order dated 16th September, 1997 contained in Annexure 4 in respect of the charges levelled against him The petitioner's licence was suspended on 20th of September, 1997 by an order of even date contained in Annexure 5, The petitioner had submitted his reply contained in Annexure 6 which however does not bear any date. However, after considering this reply as well as taking into account the charges levelled against him by order dated 3rd November, 1997, his licence was cancelled. This order is Annexure 7 to this writ petition, The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority and had also applied for stay of the order dated 3rd November, 1997 on 10th ...
Govind Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4513
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner Govind Singh has questioned his detention under order dated 7-9-1999. (Anneuxre 1), passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'2. Along with order of detention, petitioner, was also served the grounds on which basis detaining authority formed his satisfaction for detaining petitioner under the Act. From perusal of the grounds, it appears that on 25th August, 1999, a meeting was being held by Sri Suresh Chandra Tiwari, Junior Engineer of Rural Engineering Service in the meeting hall of the Development Block, which was already scheduled Village Development Officers were attending this meeting. The proceedings of the aforesaid meeting had commenced when the petitioner, who is husband of Smt. Kalian Devi, Pradhan of village Khelar, at about 12.30 p.m. suddenly entered in the meeting hall. He went near the table of Suresh Chandra Tiwari and torned the agen...
Kanpur Pesticides and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC84; 2000LC454(Allahabad); 2001(127)ELT35(All)
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Kanpur Pesticides & Chemical Private Limited is a unit engaged in the manufacture of dyes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act) and is duly registered with the Excise Department. On 16-2-1995 the petitioner's premises was surveyed by the Central Excise Officers who seized certain documents/records revealing evasion of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1.53 crores during the period assessment years 1990-91 to 1994-95. The Director as well as the Manager of the Company admitted mis-declaration and undervaluation of the goods and evasion of excise duty under the Act and undertook to pay the amount. It further appears that the Company paid the amount of Rs. 1.53 crores. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 12-11-1996 was served upon the petitioner calling upon as to why the petitioner and its Director may not be penalized for evasion of the excise duty under various provisions of the Central Excise ...
Mithilesh Kumari Vs. District Supply Officer and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1917
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The petitioner M/s. Mithilesh Kumari and Sons, has come up with a prayer to quash the order of suspension/show cause notice issued by the District Supply Officer. Bulandshahr dated 10.2.2000 appending a copy of which as Annexure-3 to this writ petition.2. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission of this writ petition, contended as follows :(i) The impugned order/show cause notice has been issued on the basis of mere registration of a criminal case under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act ; (ii) The police after investigating the said case submitted a final form which Is pending grant of sanction before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Thus, the impugned order/ show cause notice be quashed. 3. The facts stated in the impugned suspension order/show cause notice speak for themselves. It is stated therein that on receipt of complaints that kerosene oil is not correctly distributed to the rati...
Santosh Kumar Vs. Deputy Collector (Up-ziladhikari) Deoria and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1986; (2000)2UPLBEC1499
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. 1. The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 10th March. 2000, passed by the Deputy Collector (Up-Ziladhikari), District Deoria. respondent No. 1. a copy of which has been appended as Annexure-5.2. The impugned order states following facts :Munnu Chaubey, respondent No. 4 herein, moved respondent No. 1 against the order passed by the Gram Panchayat Mahuwari (respondent No, 3) cancelling his licence of Fair Price Shop as a result of which letter No. 161, dated 18.2.2000 was issued in relation to which he filed show cause stating following facts : (i) He has been correctly and regularly distributing essential commodities and no complaint was ever made by the Gram Panchayat in that regard. (ii) Correct resolution has not been made by the Pradhan nor in that regard any circulation was made and since the Pradhan has animosity with him he has initiated proceedings for cancellation, which is wrong. Thus, in view o...
Smt. Krishna Devi Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2404
ORDERD. K. Seth, J. 1. In a land acquisition proceeding, an award was made by the Collector on 11th February, 1987, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. A reference was sought for under Section 18 by the petitioner-claimant on 3rd June, 1989, giving rise to a reference being L.A.R. No. 141 of 1990. The learned District Judge, Moradabad, by a judgment and order dated 7th September, 1993 dismissed the reference on the ground of its being barred by limitation. Against this order, the present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision. According to him, the order passed by the Learned District Judge was an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which prescribes a remedy by way of appeal to the High Court. Therefore, the revision could not be maintained and the petitioner was eligib...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge, Nainital and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1881
Sudhir Narain, J. 1.This writ petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and dismissing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent.2. The petitioner is landlord of the shop in question situate at Bajaja Line, Ram Nagar of which respondent No. 2 is tenant. The petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed shop 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 there was a family partition under which the disputed shop came to his share. He was engaged in partnership business of selling Sarees with Vijal Kumar, one of his brothers, in the shop which fs owned by his brother but after he got married, the relationship between the two, became strained and now he wants to start his own independent Saree business In the disputed shop. It was stated that the tenant-respondent owns a shop at Kashipur and he can shift his busines...
Smt. Sarvati Devi Vs. 8th Addl. District Judge, Agra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1877
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of allotment dated 16.4.1983 and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 20.1.1984 dismissing the revision against the said order. 2. The petitioner is owner and landlady of the house in question situate in Mohalla Satta, Tehsil Etmadpur, district Agra. She purchased it from its previous owner Satya Prakash Kulshrestha. respondent No. 4 by a registered sale deed dated 21.3.1983 and was put in possession as owner of the said house. 3. Her version is that on 16.4.1983, there was a marriage of the son of one Bhagwan Das in the town of Etmadpur. She had gone with her entire family to attend themarriage at the house of Bhagwan Das after locking the house in question. She With her family stayed at the house of Bhagwan Das in that night on 16.4.1983. She along with her family returned to the house in the next morning, she found that the locks have been broken open and Uday Dhiraj, respondent No. 3 was in its occupation. The peti...
Chandra Shekhar Prasad Vs. Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1924
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the trial court dated 23.3.1996 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order of the revisional court dated 23.4.1997 affirming the said order in revision.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had taken the shop in question from respondent No. 3 at monthly rent of Rs. 200 for a period of 11 months. He had executed a rent note on 16th May, 1993. The landlady-respondent No. 3 gave a notice on 10th August. 1994 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and demanding arrears of rent alleged to be due since 15.4.1994. The petitioner did not comply with the said notice. She gave another notice on 19.9.1994 purporting to be under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act stating therein that the tenancy was for a period of 11 months and the said period having expired, the petitioner was liable to deliver possession...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »