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.
Ashok Kesarwani Vs. Dr. Lalta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1360
ORDERU. S. Tripalhi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance ofa writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.11.2000 passed by 15th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1998.2. The respondent, owner/ landlord of premises No. 133/128 M. Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur moved' an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (hereinafter called the Act), against the petitioner/tenant before the Prescribed Authority for release of the above premises on the ground of his personal need. The case of respondent was that the petitioner was tenant of three shops on ground floor of the premises in question on monthly rental of Rs. 250, in which he runs a shop of building materials and hardware. He started business under the name of a new firm and included in the said firm other persons, who were not his family members as partners. The respondent/landlord was a Doctor and he was running his clinic...
State of U. P. and Others Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1363
U. S. Tripathi, J.1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and modifying the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.1994 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 38312 of 1994 has further prayed for fixing market value of land in question @ Rs. 1,000 per square yard and determining annual rent on said value.2. The landlords Colonel Sawai Brijendra Singh, Ex. Maharaja, Bharatpur and his son Sri Vishwendra Singh through Mukhtaram moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Mathura under Section 29A (5) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter called the Act), for determination of annual rent of the land over which Government Inter College (Babu Briridatan Das Pushpawati Inter College, General Ganj, Mathura) was being run under the tenancy of S...
Ratan Pal Singh Vs. Kunwar Pal Singh and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All224
U. S. Tripalhi, J.1. This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1998 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge. Moradabad in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1995 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of 1st Additional Civil Judge. Moradabad dated 25.4.1994 passed in Original Suit No. 1062 of 1991 decreeing the suit of respondents for specific performance of contract.2. Kunwar Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh respondents(hereinafter called plaintiff) Jointly filed Original Suit No. 1062 of 1991 against the appellant [hereinafter called 'defendant') for specific performance of contract dated 20.11.1990 after receiving remaining sale consideration amounting to Rs. 5,000 and in the alternative, refund of earnest money amounting to Rs. 35,000 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 17% p.a. The case of plaintiffs in brief, was that the defendant was owner Bhumidhar of plot No. 124/1 area 3.13 acre. He agreed to sell the above plot in favour of ...
Vishambhar Dayal and Another Vs. 8th Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1371
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28.11.1980. 2.11.1985 and 23.11.1988 passed by the J.S.C.C. and Revlslonal Court. 2. The respondent Nos. 3 to 12 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 33 of 1980 against Ram Chander father of the petitioners for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default in payment of rent. The above suit was decreed ex parte on 28.11.1980, as the defendant of the suit was served, but did not appear to contest. 3. The petitioners moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13.C.P.C. for setting aside the above ex parte decree on the ground that summons of the case was not served on their father, nor he refused to take any summons. They came to know about the decree only on 7.12.1981 through one Ram Autar. The respondents contested the above application on various grounds. The above application of the petitioners was. howev...
Mst. Mangno and Others Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2040
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.2.1986 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision and rejecting the application of respondent No. 2 to set aside the auction sale.2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 80 of 1975 for recovery of money against the petitioners. The suit was finally decreed in 1979. The decree-holder filed application for execution of the decree in the year 1979. The property of the judgment-debtors was attached and sold in auction on 4.9.1981. The petitioners filed objection under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was dismissed in default and the auction sale was confirmed on 18.2.1983 and the Court directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the property which was sold in auction. The petitioners thereupon filed application to set aside the auction sale held on 4.9.1981 with the allegation that they had deposited the amount after the auction sale,...
Shashi Bala Sinha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC263; [2002(94)FLR800]; (2001)3UPLBEC2462
U.K. Dhaon, J. 1. Heard the arguments of Sri R. S. Pandey, Sri K. S. Bajpai and Sri Kamaluddin Khan for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. As the common question of law and facts are Involved in the above noted writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.2. The brief facts of the case are that applications were invited for filling 13 posts of Instructor Stenographer (Hindi) In the Coaching-cum-Guldance Centres at various Employment Exchanges in U. P. through the letter dated 14.4.1983 Issued by Director of Employment and Training, U. P. The Employment Exchanges were required to forward the names by 30.4.1983. The petitioners were directed to appear in the interview on 22.6.1983 at 10 a.m. at the Directorate, Lucknow. On 22.6.1983, a written test was conducted and thereafter the petitioners were also required to appear for interview. The Director of Employment and Training, U. P., on 6.8.1983 issued letters o...
Mamta Mittal (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2171
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner, Smt. Mamta Mittal, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.5.93 passed by the Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. She further seeks writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner as an Assistant Psychologist as a regular candidate which was made on 21.7.88 and she be entitled for all the benefits.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Psychologist in the Bureau of Psychology, U.P., Allahabad on 16.8.78. She joined on 18.8.78. Vide order dated 21.7.88 passed by the Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition her services had been regularised. The petitio...
Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2869
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the impugned detention order dated 16-2-2001 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. Heard Sri. A.D. Giri, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Union of India at length and perused the petition and annexures thereto.3. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted three week time to file counter affidavit. Connect with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2040 of 2001, Ashwani Kumar Jain v. Union of India (and Ors.) and list immediately thereafter.4. Sri. A.D. Giri has prayed that the petitioner should not be arrested during the pendency of this petition. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Additional Sectionetary to the Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Godia 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496 and has submitted that unless the petitioner surrenders he cannot challenge ...
Balbir Singh Sethi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1569
S.R. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the detention order bearing no. 673/80/2000-Cus. VIII dated 16-2-2001, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA ACT Section) New Delhi dated 16th Feb. 2001 (Annexure 1 to the petition). The order aforestated has been made by the detaining authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (abbreviated to COFEPOSA ACT) on being satisfied with respect to the petitioner 'with a view to preventing him from abetting smuggling of goods as well as engaging in keeping smuggled goods in future', it is necessary to direct the petitioner to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Meerut.2. Though the grounds of detention have not been filed, it would appear that the impugned detention order has been made in the backdrop of an incident in wh...
Ram Babu JaIn Vs. Virendra Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1328
B. K. Rathi, J.1. This is revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2001 passed by the J.S.C.C./IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1991.2. The premises in dispute In shop No. 1786-B situated within the limits of Nagar Palika, Hathras. The respondents filed the suit for eviction against the revisionist mainly on the ground that the shop was imposed tax for the first time on 1.10.1981. That the suit was filed on 30.5.1991 and therefore. U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply to the premises in suit. That the tenancy has been terminated by the notice.3. The revisionist contested the suit alleging that the shop in dispute is an old construction. PreviouslyJwala Prasad was the tenant of the shop and thereafter, the revisionist is a tenant. That the notice is invalid,4. The trial court framed necessary issues and recorded the findings in favour of the respondents on all issues and decreed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »