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.
Sihasan Rai Vs. Ram NaraIn Alias Ramayan Rai and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All280
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.1997 passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner for transposition as plaintiff and the order of the revisional court dated 24.1.2001 dismissing the revision against the said order. 2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that Rani Narain, respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 258 of 1981 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Ist set for mandatory injunction to remove certain constructions and restraining them from interfering in possession of the plaintiff. In the suit, he had impleaded Sheo Sagar and Dev Sagar as defendants 1st set and the defendant Nos. 3 to 12 as defendants 2nd set. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the suit. The plaintiff did not claim any relief as against the defendants 2nd set. The plaintiff entered into a compromise with the defendants Ist set and the suit was decreed on 9.9.1982 on the basis of the said compromise.3. The petitioner file...
Mahendra Nath Verma Vs. District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1910
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The Parshuram Joshi deceased, the father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent being S.C.C. suit No. 253 of 1972 against Baijnath, father of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in the Court of J.S.C.C., Varanasi. It was alleged in the plaint that Baijnath was tenant of the ground floor as well as first floor of the house in dispute. The suit was decreed on 31.3.1979. The plaintiff, Parshuram Joshi filed an application for execution No. 17 of 1979 against Baijnath. During the pendency of the execution, Parshuram Joshi died and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were impleaded in his place. Baijnath also died and respondent Nos. 7 to 9 were impleaded in his place.2. The petitioner claims that he is tenant of the first floor of the said house since long and the suit and the decree between Parshuram Joshi and Baijnath were collusive. Therefore, on 22.3.1986 he filed objections under Order XXI. Rule 97, C.P.C., (however, in the objections Order XXII...
Akbal Singh and ors. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2169
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. According to the petitioners, they have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in C.T. Grade in Ram Manohar Lohia Inter College, Pakari Babu, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the College), on 4.1.1989. When they were not being paid their salary, they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6605 of 1992 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 20.2.1992 whereby it was directed that the petitioners would continue to perform the duties of Assistant Teachers regularly till the regular selection is made and would be paid their salary. However, vide judgment and order dated 31.8.1999, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction for making a fresh representation within two months before the concerned respondents who shall pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law within three months from the date of its making, and the petitioners were to be continue in service and paid their salary till the disposal of the said represe...
inamul Haq Engineer Vs. Superintendent, Division/District Jail and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4398
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order dated 20-1-2001 Annexure 1 to the writ petition passed under the National Security Act.2. We have the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the affidavits.3. The petitioner has alleged that he is a businessman and is a member of the Samajvadi Party . It appears from a perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 2 to the petition) that on 5-11-2000 at about 7 p.m. the petitioner with his associates (who are Sunni Muslims ) attacked persons belonging to the Shia community with firearms and country made pistols and injured them. It alleged that on account of this incident people of the locality due to fear shut the doors of their shops and public order was disturbed and an F.I.R. was registered in Case Crime No. 425 of 2000 Under Section 147, 148/149/307/504/506, I.P.C. read with Section 5 Explosive Substances Act and Section 7, Cri. Law Amendment Act.4. It is alleged that on 29-1-2001 when ...
Lucknow Public School Vs. Director, Madhyamik Shiksha, U.P., Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1646; (2001)3UPLBEC1998
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw recognition of the opposite party No. 4 unless and until he changes the name of his school. Prayer for awarding damages and suitable punishment by way of appropriate direction has also been pressed into service.2. Lucknow Public School, Jail Road. Anand Nagar Lucknow is running under the aegis of the registered society 'Bharti Shiksha Samiti, Jail Road. Lucknow'. The said society was also running its school under the name and style of Bharti Montessori School, but following a dispute among the members of the Committee of Management, its name was changed to Lucknow Public School, Jail Road, Anand Nagar andthis new name was duly approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 6.7.1985. The said school was accorded permanent recognition in the year 1987. It is alleged further that by efflux of time, the petitioner school earned n...
Jitendra and Virendra Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1811
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The accommodation in dispute is commercial building situated at 38/4, Gillis Bazar, Kanpur. The respondent No. 2 who is landlady of the premises filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 alleging that she bona fide require the premises to settle her son Vinay Madho Khanna in the business who is without employment and is married and had one son and one daughter aged 10 years and 6 years respectively ; that he is looking after the cattle market in village Ramaipur, district Kanpur Nagar which is held on Monday and Thursday only ; that, therefore, the landlady in order to augment her income want that her son be employed on all the days of the week in some permanentbusiness. The petitioners contested the application for release. The application for release was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 14.5.1998. Annexure-8 to the petition. Against that order, the respondent No. 2 filed Rent Ap...
Janab and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1809
S.K. Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jyotiba Phule Nagar dated 21.3.2001 by which the allotment, as was made in favour of the petitioners for housing site, was cancelled and it was directed that the land will stand restored back in Gaon Sabha.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Gaon Sabha by Sri Anuj Kumar who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the writ petition as has been filed by the petitioners should not be entertained as they have an alternative remedy to approach the revisional jurisdiction of the Addl. Commissioner/Board of Revenue.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners having placed reliance on the provisions as contained in Section 122C, sub-clause (7) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) argued that every order passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-section (4) shall subject to the provisions of sub...
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mathura Refinery Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1861; (2001)2UPLBEC1466
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 29.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Joint Organisation. Mathura -(as contained In Annexure-19) directing the parties not to interfere in possession of each other till the dispute is resolved by a competent court on the ground that under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he has not been vested with powers to grant injunction apart from the fact it is based on the illegal report of the Lekhpal, who was not even examined to prove his report and against which the petitioner filed an objection, which was not decided.2. Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the order being absolutely without Jurisdiction, the continuance of which will cause an apparent injustice to the petitioner, who has already laid down the pipe line for supply of water to its refinery in 1978-79 after acquisition...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sarvati Devi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC331; 2002ACJ985; 2001(3)AWC1862
Binod Kumar Roy and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. The Appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. assails validity of the judgment dated 16.2.2001 passed by Sri Jagannath. H.J.S. Vth Additional District Judge, Mainpuri/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mainpuri.2. The sole submission made by Sri A. C. Nigam on the question of admission of this appeal is that the claim petition having been filed after six years from the date of accident, it ought to have been rejected under the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act as only three years period was available for its filing.3. In our view the submission is wholly devoid of substance for more than one reasons :(a) Earlier under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, six months period was prescribed for filing a claim petition. Under its proviso a Jurisdiction was also vested in the Claims Tribunal to entertain time barred petitions upto 12 months. However, sub-section (3) was omitted by Section 53 of Act 54 of 1994 with ef...
Satish Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2565; [2001(91)FLR847]; (2002)1UPLBEC610
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. Sri Satish Kumar Shukla, erstwhile constable of Central Reserve Police Force, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of his termination dated 27.3.1998. He has also sought for another writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties as constable in C.R.P.F., R.T.C.-4, Hammama, Srinagar.2. The factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.). After the prescribed process of selection and the final test of physical fitness, he joined his service on 1.1.1997 and completed nine months training very sincerely and honestly and during the said period of training, his record was absolutely satisfactory, unblemished and meritorious. However, just before the completion of his refresher training, his services were terminat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »