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.
Km. Archana Goel Vs. Judge, Scc., Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1571
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The respondent No. 3 filed SCC. suit No. 99 of 1994 against the petitioner for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. In the suit, the respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order XV, Rule 5. C.P.C. for strucking off the defence. The said application was allowed on 8.4.1999 by Judge. Small Cause Courts, Allahabad by order, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Against that order the petitioner preferred SCC. revision No. 506 of 1999. That has also been dismissed by order dated 9.8.2000 by Additional District Judge. Allahabad, by order Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Sri S. C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel. 3. In this case, it is admitted to the petitioner that he is the tenant in the premises in the suit, of wh...
Suresh Chandra Goel Vs. Judge, Scc., Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1573
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The respondent No. 3 filed SCC. Suit No. 100 of 1994 against the petitioner for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. In the suit, the respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. for strucking off the defence. The said application was allowed on 8.4.1999 by Judge. Small Cause Courts, Allahabad by order, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Against that order, the petitioner preferred SCC, revision No. 506 of 1999. That has also been dismissed by order dated 9.8.2000 by Additional District Judge, Allahabad, by order Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitulion of India.2. I have heard Sri S. C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel.3. In this case, it is admitted to the petitioner that he is the tenant in the premises in the suit, of wh...
Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs. Krishan Lal Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1588
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The respondent-landlord moved an application for release of shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which is in the tenancy of the petitioner being Release Application No. 81 of 1990, Annexure-3 to the petition. The need alleged by the landlord is to settle his son Gulshan Kumar in the business who is alleged to be without any employment. The application for release was rejected by the prescribed authority on 12.9.1995 by Annexure-2 to the petition. Therefore, the respondent preferred appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which has been allowed on 25.4.2001 by judgment Annexure-1 to the petition and the shop in dispute has been released in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred.2. I have heard Sri Manish Goyal. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the perusal of t...
Shiv Prasad Vs. Xiith Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1637
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The property in dispute is house No. Sa-1/133. Mohalla Pandeypur Khajur City and district Varanasi. The respondent No. 3 alleging him to be the landlord filed suit against the petitioner for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent being S.C.C. Suit No. 119 of 1983. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The suit proceeded under Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. and was decreed on 28.8.1990 by judgment. Annexure-2 to the writ petition by Judge Small Cause Court, Varanasi. Against the judgment the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 145 of 1990 under Section 25 of the Provisional Small Cause Courts Act. That revision has been dismissed on 16.3.2001 by Judgment Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The tenant has. therefore, approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai. learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ravi Kant, learned cou...
Smt. Lalli Devi Vs. Viiith Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1780
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Both these petitions Involve the same questions and. therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The premises in dispute is the first floor of house No. 45/18, Annapurna Gall, Bhaironath, Varanasi. On the first floor, there are two rooms and a varandah. In one room Smt. Lalli Devi. the petitioner in petition No. 19020 of 1999 is tenant. In another room. Shankar Prasad Singh, petitioner in Petition No. 36587 of 1999 is tenant. On the ground floor of the house, there are two rooms in the possession of the landlady respondent No. 2 and her husband respondent No. 3; that her husband respondent No. 3 is the pujari of a temple of house No. 32/50 situated in Annapurna Gali, Bhafronath, Varanasi ; that he is offering prayer in the temple and staying in one room of the said house. However, the owners of the house have now asked him to vacate the same : that, therefore, the respondent No. 2 landlady required the disputed portion for living with her family in...
Aqeel Jamil Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4392
ORDERR.B. Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 2-2-2001 passed Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. Several grounds have been taken in the petition, but since we are allowing the petition on the very first ground it is not necessary to go into the other grounds.3. The petitioner is a bus driver who is a Muslim. On 10-1-2001 he was driving his bus. At 2.30 P.M. there was a collision between the bus and a cyclist Manoj, and Manoj sustained injuries. It appears that Muslims came to support the petitioner and Hindus came to support Manoj and there was stoning and some quarrel.4. In our opinion this was not a proper ground for passing the detention order.5. Section 3(2) of the National Security Act states :-The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State ...
Smt. Anjum Ara Vs. Xith Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1570
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1) fa) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for the release of the premises in possession of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Annexure-1 to the petition. The application for release was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 19.11.1997. Annexure-12 to the petition. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Rent Appeal No. 10 of 1997 under Section 22 of the Act. The rent appeal has been allowed on 27.4.1998 by order. Annexure-13 to the petition. The petitioner, therefore, has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Sri R. U. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear and, therefore, they could not be heard. 3. The premises in dispute known as Zahur Building situated in Golghar. Gorakhpur City. Originally, Zahurul Hasan was the owner and landlord of the same. He died...
R.C. Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR165]; 2001LabIC4035; (2001)3UPLBEC2008
M. Katju and R. B. Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Tewari learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.1.2001 (Annexure-9 to the petition). By that order, the service of petitioner who was Assistant Labour Officer in Sant Kabir Sahkari, Cooperative Mills Ltd. has been terminated. Since the mill has been closed on 5.10.2000. hence the petitioner's service was terminated on 25.1.2001.3. We see no legal basis for the claim of the petitioner to get re-employment. No doubt we can understand the suffering of the people of this country because a large number of mills are closing down due to various reasons such as entry of goods of Multi National Companies or Chinese goods, etc. However, this Court is helpless in such matters. Had it been within our power, we could have passed an order that everyone in this country should get a job, but such an order will be meaningless....
Subhash Chandra Saxena Vs. Viith Addl. District Judge, Bareilly and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1776
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The premises in dispute is house No. 143-C Mohalla Zakati, Koocha Kole-walan, Bareilly. Originally, Tej Bahadur was tenant in the said house who had died leaving his only son Subhash Chandra Saxena. the present petitioner. Subhash Chandra Sexena is in service at Budaun and is living there. Therefore, the house was lying vacant. It was, accordingly, declared vacant on 27.6.1986. Subhash Chandra Saxena moved an application for review of the order dated 27.6.1986 which was also rejected on 27.2.1987. Thereafter, the application of the respondents-landlords for the release was considered and the premises was released in their favour by order dated 9.2.1988 by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, Annexure-2 to the petition. Against that order the petitioner Subhash Chandra Saxena filed a revision No. 44 of 1988 challenging the vacancy and also of the order of release. The revision has also been dismissed by order dated 30.7.1991, Annexure-1 to the petition. Therefor...
Smt. Kalindi and Another Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Deoria a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1978
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orderdated 19.2.2001 passed byrespondents No. 1 in revision holding that the suit is cognizable by the civil court.2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 1073 of 1993 in the Court of Munsif, Deoria for cancellation of the gift-deed dated 31.12.1985 and the sale-deed dated 29.9.1987 in respect of the agricultural land with the allegations that the land in dispute is sir land. He was born prior to the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the 'Act'). He being a coparcener acquired rights in the sir land by the birth. His father Sadanand married Smt. Israji, who is stepmother of the plaintiff. She obtained the gift-deed and sale-deed fraudulently. His father had not put signature or thumb impression on the disputed sale-deed and gift-deed. The sale-deed was without consideration. In any case, he had no right to execute the sale-deed in respect of his share over ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »