Allahabad Court May 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.
Narendra Kumar JaIn Vs. District Judge, Mordabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1876
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the Insolvency petition filed by the petitioner and the order of the appellate court dated 1.3.2001 affirming the said order in appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts arethat Punjab National Bank, BranchStation Road, Moradabad, respondentNo. 3, (in short the 'Bank') filed suitNo. 717 of 1991 for recovery ofamount against the petitioner as wellas M/s. Shivalik International andothers. The suit was decreed on10.2.1992 for Rs. 20,72.000.3. The petitioner filed an insolvency petition before respondent No. 2 for declaring insolvent with the allegation that Rs. 20,72.000 is due to Punjab National Bank. He has 1/72 share in the house situate in Seohara Town, district Bijnor, the value of which is hardly Rs. 1,000 and his wearing clothes and other assets are valued at Rs. 2,000. The bank raised an objection that insolvency petition is not maintainable against the bank in view o...
Raja Mahesh Chand Vs. Kunwar Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1845
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The petitioner isthe landlord of shop situated in Bara Bazar. Aligarh of which the respondent No. 2 is the tenant. He moved an application under Section 28 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for major repair in the shop. The said application is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner-landlord contested the application. However, it has been allowed in part by order dated 28.4.2001. The respondent No. 1 has been permitted to carry out the repairs spending not more than Rs. 3.200 by order Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request to quash the order dated 28.4.2001. Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition passed by the prescribed authority.2. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Gupta,learned counsel for the respondent.3. The first argument of the l...
Hari Ram Vs. Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1906
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the appeal was allowed and the application of the petitioner filed under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act was rejected.2. The factual matrix of the case is that Man Singh, respondent No. 3, filed suit against the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement with the allegations that the petitioner entered into agreement to sell the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. He was paid Rs. 1,17,000 but did not execute the sale-deed. The suit was decreed by the trial court. 2 The petitioner preferred first appeal against the decree of the trial court. It was dismissed on29.2.1998. He filed second appeal against this judgment. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 16.11.1998. He preferred special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court. The special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.2.1999. He further filed applicati...
Rail India Technical and Economic Services Ltd. and Another Vs. Vidyaw ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ARBLR410(All); 2001CriLJ274
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated November 17, 2000 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.2. M/s. Vidyawati Construction Company, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner Rail India Technical and Economic Services Ltd. (in brief.R.I.T.E.S.) invited tenders for construction of institute building and staff quarters for Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad and the tender submitted by it was accepted on May, 1992. The stipulated period for completion of work was 12 months which was extended from time to time and the work was actually completed on July 30. 1995 but the R.I.T.E.S. did not issue any completion certificate. A sum of Rs. 88.79, 847 was due to it t...
Union of India and Another Vs. Chief Justice of High Court of Judicatu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ARBLR427(All); 2001CriLJ263
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated August 25. 2000 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. M/s. Suristh Tiwary (respondent No. 2) filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that M/s. Border Roads Organisation awarded a contract for supply of earth for construction of Varanasi-Ram Nagar-Mugalsarai Road and an agreement in that connection was executed between the parties on February 5, 1997. Due to rainy season, the work could not be completed within the stipulated period, i.e., September 27, 1997. The firm had submitted a schedule to complete the work by March 31, 1978. There was a dispute regarding the amount which was to be paid to the firm and accordingly it gave a notice on October 23, 1999 for appointment of an arbitrator but no arbitrator was appointed. It was accordingly prayed that an ...
Rahmat Khan Vs. District Judge, Bareilly and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All357; (2001)2UPLBEC1762
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the objection of the petitioner in regard to the validity of fling the election petition and the order of the revisional court dated 11.5.2001 dismissing the revision against the said order.2. The election of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Boomchi, tehsil Meerganj, Bareilly was held in June, 2000. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 3 filed election petition under Section 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act) challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds. In the said election petition, the petitioner filed an application before the Prescribed Authority for rejecting the election petition with the allegations that the election petition was not properly presented before the appropriate authority and without required amount being deposited before presenting the election petition.3. The...
Km. Archana Mehta Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1990; (2001)2UPLBEC1639
A.K. Yog, J.1. All the respondents in these writ petitions are represented by Standing Counsel and Shri Sudhir Agrawal, advocate. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in some of these petitions. As agreed at the Bar, writ petition filed by Kumari Archana Mehta is treated as leading case. All the counsel, representing respective parties agreed to argue their cases on the basis of pleadings already on record and further that all these cases be decided finally at admission stage as contemplated under Rules of Court.2. 'Selection process' adopted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for making appointment on certain posts of Typist and Routine Grade Assistant under Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (called the 'Rules, 1976') is being challenged by means of these writ petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India. The process of selection is, however, still midway and yet to be completed.3. The undisputed facts, f...
Nagendra Kumar JaIn Vs. District Judge, Moradabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)1CompLJ95(All)
ORDERSudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-9-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the insolvency petition filed by the petitioner and the order of the appellate court dated 1-3-2001 affirming the said order in appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Punjab National Bank, Branch: Station Road, Moradabad, the respondent No. 3, ('the Bank') filed Suit No. 717 of 1991 for recovery of amount against the petitioner as well as Shivalik International and others. The suit was decreed on 10-2-1992 for Rs. 20,72,000.3. The petitioner filed an insolvency petition before the respondent No. 2 for declaring him insolvent with the allegation that Rs. 20,72,000 is due to Punjab National Bank. He has 1/72nd share in the house situated in Seohara Town, District Bijnor, the value of which is hardly Rs. 1,000 and his wearing clothes and other assets are valued at Rs. 2,000. The bank raised an objection that insolvency petition is not maintainable against...
Prakashak, Madhu Prakashan Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC746(All)
Sudhir Narain, J.1. Respondent No. 3 filed suit for permanent injunction in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 11.1.1998. The defendants in suit filed appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 12.5.1999, They preferred Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 25.5.1999. The defendants further preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 4.10.1999. The plaintiff-repondents filed an application for execution of the decree. The petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of CPC alleging that he was not a party in the suit and as such the decree is not binding and the decree cannot be given effect to. The executing court rejected the objection on 27.3.2001. The petitioner preferred revision and the revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.4.2001.2. I have heard Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the re...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: II(2003)ACC468
Binod Kumar Roy, J.1. Having heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal as well as First Appeal From Order No. 790 of 2001 which are being tagged since both of them arise out of same accident in which the mother as well as father of the claimant-respondent No. 1 Ramawati had died and proceed to consider them on the question of their admission.2. Three-fold contentions have been made by Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant for admitting these appeals: (i) since the claimant was a married daughter of the deceased, therefore, she was not entitled to file the claim petition, which was wrongly entertained and allowed by the impugned judgment; (ii) since the claimant was a married daughter, therefore, also it could not be said that she was dependent on her deceased parents; (iii) no proof of income of the deceased was furnished by the claimant.3. In our view none of the contentions are tenable.4. Under Section 166(d) of the Mot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »