Allahabad Court November 2001 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.
Nagina Palace Cinema Hall and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC181A; (2002)1UPLBEC66
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the citation dated 20.5.2001 issued by the Tehsildar, Jamanta, district Ghazipur, and also the attachment of properties made on 20.7.2001 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents not to auction the properties of the petitioner.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Singh for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.3. The petitioners took a loan of Rs. five lakhs from Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ghazipur, which was sanctioned on 21.7.1990. A citation dated 20.5.2001 has been issued by the Tehsildar, Jamanla, Ghazipur, for recovery of Rs. 17,97,345. In paragraphs 8 and 12 of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioners had filed two writ petitions earlier, but the copies of orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions were not filed. We accordingly passed an order for filing of the copies of the ord...
Amalendu Das Gupta Alias Rajat Vs. Sheela Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC187
A.K. Yog, J.1. This is a tenant's petition.2. Heard Sri M.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Upadhaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Other respondents are not relevant being the Court which decided1 the release proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act').3. The dispute relates to a residential accommodation in possession of the tenant which came to the ownership of the landlord through gift deed (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Release application (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was filed on the ground that landlord required the accommodation (portion of House No. 24/10, P.O. Varanasi, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom) and subject-matter of release application registered as P.A. Case No. 17 of 1998, Sheela Das Gupta v. Amlendu Das Gupta. Tenant filed written statement.4. Parties exchanged affidavits and thereafter pr...
Om Prakash Singh Yadav Vs. Director, State Council for Education Resea ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC420; (2002)1UPLBEC788
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard by me on 8.11.2001 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I dismissed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons for the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition are as under.2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition claimed the following reliefs :'A. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to accept application form of the petitioner and to consider candidature of petitioner on merits along with other candidates and to declare his result accordingly ;B. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding theOpp. parties to accord all consequential benefit to the petitioner according to result of selection ;C. to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ;D. to award cost of this petition.'3. According to the petitioner's own ...
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Saroj Upadhyaya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC416
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 26.3.2001 awarding Rs. 4,20,000/- as the compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents with the allegations that on 29.5.1994 at about 10.00 a.m. when Prem Narain Upadhyaya was returning home from attending a marriage party at Bansgaon in a Jeep No. UP-53/C-6845, a Roadways Bus No. UMV/9305 dashed against the said Jeep with the result the Jeep was damaged badly and Prem Narain Upadhyaya, who was travelling by the Jeep, received serious injuries and died due to the injuries sustained by him in this accident. The deceased left behind him his widow and 5 minor children. The appellant contested the claim petition, inter alia, by denying that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal after considering all the material evidence and perusin...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. White Rose and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1061; 2002(1)AWC78
Sudhir Narain and V. M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Deoria, awarding Rs. 4,08,801 as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents with the allegations that on July 26. 1992 at about 9 p.m. when Imtiaz, husband of claimant-respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 3 and 4, was going on his scooter. Truck No. URO 9570 dashed against him with the result he received serious injuries and later on expired. He was aged about 28 years and was working as a Manager in U. P. State Tourist Corporation on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,700. He died leaving behind him his widow, a minor son, a minor daughter and mother. It was alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question.3. The appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds. It was pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant and fu...
Salik and Seeaye Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC164
R.H. Zaidl, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and also learned standing counsel.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 certiorari quashing the order dated 30.7.1984 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'). The prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus staying the operation of the impugned order has also been made.3. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under Section 20/21 of the Act.4. It appears that the chaks were formulated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Parties filed objections, which were referred to the Consolidation Officer for decision. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases....
Satish Kumar Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidati ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC166
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Present petition arises out of the allotment proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for short 'the Act' and is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6.10.1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted 3 chaks to the petitioners. Inspite of the objections filed by the contesting respondents, the chaks of the petitioners were not disturbed either by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thereafter two writ petitions were filed, one by Hira Lal and others and another by Devi Prasad and others. The said writ petitions were numbered as 2472 of 1986 and 2433 of 1986, respectively. Both the writ petitions were allowed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 24.1.1989 and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Conso...
Jogender Singh and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC141
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barellly, order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Camp at Shahjahanpur and the order dated 25.1.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Shahjahanpur. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders passed in revision Nos. 99, 108 and 109. 3. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the writ petition are ; the dispute relates to Gata No. 41-M (15.00, acres) of Khata No. 103 ; Gata No. 2-M (8.50 acres) of Khata No. 262 and Gata No. 2-M (6.25 acres) of Khata No. 41 situated in village Gahloioya, Paragana and Tehsil Powayan, district Shahjahanpur. A notification under Section 4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Act) was issued by the State Government proposing the area therein to be declared as reserv...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Saroj Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC184
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad awarding Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that oh 15th January, 1994 at about 7.00 a.m. Truck No. D.I.L. 3820 dashed against Truck No. U.P. 65C 8155 in which Madan Kahar was working as a cleaner. He received serious injuries and later on expired leaving behind him his widow and one minor daughter. He was aged about 30 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,800/-.3. The appellant contested the claim petition and it was contended that the accident was not caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. DIL-3820. The Tribunal considered the evidence produced in the case and came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DIL-3820 and on evidence found that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. This order has be...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC687; II(2002)ACC36; 2002ACJ687
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated 18.7.2001 awarding Rs. 1,72,000 as compensation to claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 with the allegations that his son met with an accident and died on 17.5.1996 when vehicle No. UP 71-A 6393 hit him, which was due to rash and negligent driving by its driver.3. The appellant contested the matter on various grounds.4. The Tribunal recorded the finding that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and considering the material evidence on record, it was found that respondent No. 1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,72,000 as compensation.5. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged in the present appeal.6. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question had a licence to drive ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »