Allahabad Court April 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.
Mohd. Salim Alias Salim UddIn Vs. 4th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1468
O.P. Garg, J.1. The dispute relates to the tenanted accommodation House No. 149/160 Sadiyabad. Allahabad. This house was purchased by respondent No, 3 Ghalib Hussain on 10.5.1993 from the previous owners. On 20.5.1994 respondent No. 3 served a composite notice of demand and to quit. Arrears of rent for the period 10.5.1993 to 9.6.1994 were demanded. The present petitioner sent reply to the notice. The respondent No. 3 filed SCC Suit No. 118 of 1994 on 10.8.1994 for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2.350 and mesne profits. After the suit was registered, the trial court issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance and to file written statement on 21.10.1994. Summons was served and the petitioner appeared before the trial court on the date fixed, i.e., 21.10.1994 and moved an application that he may be provided a copy of the plaint. An order was passed to furnish a copy of the plaint to the petitioner and 21.11.1994 was fixed for fili...
Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs. 17th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1531
O.P. Garg, J.1. Originally late Ram Swaroop Agarwal was the tenant in premises No. 476 (old No. 364) Badshahi Mandi, Allahabad. After his death in the year 1980, his son Vinay Kumar Agarwal, the present petitioner inherited the tenancy rights. Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya and others claiming themselves to be the owner/land lords served a noticedated 19.6.1995 by registered post on the petitioner Vinay Kumar Agarwal requiring him to clear the arrears of rent for the period May, 1980 onwards and terminating his tenancy. The notice was duly served on the petitioner and he had, in fact, sent the reply thereto asserting that the arrears of rent after statutory deductions in the form of taxes, etc.. have already been deposited in court in proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was maintained by the petitioner that since no arrears of rent were due to be paid, ...
Rajendra Kumar Nigam Vs. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1544
O.P. Garg, J.1. The disputerelates to premises No. 1 15/95,Ashok Nagar, Kanpur in which one late Arjun Lal was a tenant. Rajendra Kumar Nigam, the present petitioner who is landlord of the said premises, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was registered as P.A. case No. 18 of 1996. The said release petition was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 11.3.1999. Late Arjun Lal or his legal heirs did not file any appeal under Section 22 of the Act and thus, the order of release dated 11.3.1999 became final. 2. The landlord moved an application under Section 23 of the Act for implementation/execution of the order of release. In spite of the best efforts of the prescribed authority, the landlord could not be put in physical possession of the released accommodation oh account of the obstruction/resistance put in by one Bra...
Sudha Shankar and Prem Shankar Vs. Jagdish Lal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1594
O.P. Garg, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14.4.1977 whereby their First Appeal No. 137 of 1974 was dismissed. 2. The appellants were the defendants of the first set in Original Suit No. 234 of 1971 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for the specific performance of the agreement dated 1.7.1968 followed by an additional agreement (Tltamma) dated 24.10.1968 for sale of the properties covered by the agreement. The appellants as defendants contested the suit on verity of grounds. After due contest, the suit for the relief of specific performance was decreed against the present appellants on 21.2.1974. The operative portion of the order of the trial court and as affirmed in the First Appeal No. 137 of 1974 runs as follows : 'The plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of theagreement for sale dated 1.7.68 and agreement for sale 'titimma satta' dated 24.10.68 and agreement dated 19.11.68 directing the...
Mahavir Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR958]; 2001LabIC3527; (2001)3UPLBEC2060
M. Katju and O. Bhatt, JJ.1. In this case, learned standing counsel was granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit by order dated 12.9.2000. Thereafter on 6.2,2000, he was granted three weeks and no more time to file counter-affidavit but as yet, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Hence, we treat the allegations in the writ petition to be correct.2. The petitioner retired as D.I.O.S. on 31.7.1993. On 10.6.1993. he was served with a charge-sheet and thereafter in 1994, he was served with a supplementary charge-sheet but it is deeply regrettable thatinquiry has not yet been completed and the petitioner is only getting provisional pension. In our opinion, the inquiry cannot be kept pending for so many years.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the rules dated 2.11.1995 made under Article 309 of the Constitution vide Annexure-8. In clause 17 of the same, it is mentioned that if inquiry commences before the retirement, then it must be completed within six months after the...
Rahul Kumar Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1627
Pradeep Kant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks his admission in one of the 7 Government Engineering Colleges in Uttar Pradesh under Non-Resident Indians Sponsored quota. The petitioner appeared in U.P. State Engineering Admission Test (Special Examination), 2000 [UPSEAT (SE), 2000] held in September, 2000 for being admitted to the graduate course in Engineering Colleges in State of U.P. The petitioner secured his position in the waiting list as a candidate belonging to Backward category. He was also called for counselling by the Coordinator of the Examination on 18.10.2000 and again on 19.10.2000. It has been alleged that at the counselling the petitioner was informed by the members of the Committee that he may be provided a seat reserved under Non-Resident Indians sponsored quota. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid representation by the members of the Committee, moved an application seeking his admission against one of the seats meant for NRI sponsor...
Mukul Kumar and ors. Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC318
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. We have perused the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 47/1998 under Section 498A(34) which was registered at Jabalpur. The F.I.R. discloses the alleged cruelty was perpetuated against the informant at Lucknow.2. According to the averments made in the F.I.R., marriage of the informant Ritcha Kumar and Mukul Kumar was solemnized. The alleged cruelty was perpetuated by the petitioner and his in laws against the informant at Lucknow. Demand of dowry was alleged by the petitioner and his in-laws of the informant at Lucknow. A petition for divorce was also filed at Faridabad by the petitioners under the Hindu Marriage Act, where they last resided altogether. The former wife of the petitioner, Ms. Ritcha Kumar filed a transfer application of the case bearing No. 41/ 1999 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.3. During the pendency of the said transfer application, the parties compromised, as a result of which, Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed the following order on September 13, 1999.'The...
Dr. Gaurav Khanna Vs. Secretary, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1251; (2001)3UPLBEC2025
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner passed his M.B.B.S. examination in 1998 from Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. After completing his internship, he was enrolled for house job at Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad (in brief K.N.M.H.). He worked as House Surgeon in the Department of Radiation & Oncology from 6.1.2000 to 31.12.2000. He qualified in the primary examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India) New Delhi, the respondent No. 3 (in brief N.B.E.) in July 2000. On 20.11.2000 an advertisement was published in newspaper Amar Ujala inviting applications for admission to Diplomate of National Board (D.N.B. course) in Radiotherapy for the session 2001. Petitioner applied and appeared in the objective written test on 12.12.2000 and was successful. Thereafter, on 13.12.2000 he appeared in interview. There were two seats in D.N.B. course in Radiotherapy and the petitioner was the only candidate who had a...
State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ram Piyarey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1508; (2005)2UPLBEC1593
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Sri N. K. Seth, learned advocate for the appellants and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned advocate, for the writ petitioner.2. This Special Appeal Is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2001 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition which was filed against the impugned orders of the Bank rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as the father of the petitioner died-in-harness.3. The learned single Judge recorded that the plea taken by the Bank in rejecting appointment on compassionate ground is that the widow of the deceased is getting family pension of Rs. 2,150 and that a further sum of Rs. 1.42 lacs was paid to the widow after deducting the loan amount and the family possesses two houses and a half hectare of non-irrigated land.4. It appears from the record that the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow, recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The t...
Mahesh Chauhan Vs. Anil and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1691; (2001)2UPLBEC1277
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2001 whereby the respondent No. 2 decided issue No. 7 holding that the election petition is maintainable and permitting theelection petitioner to append a fresh verification of the election petition.2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that the election from Ward No. 6. Gautam Budh Nagar for the membership of Zila Panchayat was held on 29.6.2000. The petitioner was declared elected by margin of 18 votes as against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed election petition on 7.7.2000 in the Court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner filed an application (29C) to dismiss the election petition on the ground that it was not maintainable. It was alleged that the election petition under the provisions of U. P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of Disputes Relating Membership) Rules, 1994 (in short the Rules) can only be presented in person by the election petitioner, whereas the election petition was presen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »