Allahabad Court November 2002 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.
Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All140
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner Shri Umesh Chandra Saxena, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the plaint and the entire proceedings of O. S. No. 360 of 2000, Smt. Mohini, Bajpai and Ors. v. U.C. Saxena pending before the respondent No. 1.(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire, impugned orders dated 27-11-2000 passed by the respondent No. 1.(c) issue any other suitable, writ, order ordirection which this Hon'ble Court may deemfit and proper under the circumstances ofthe case. _ .(d) award cost of the writ petition.'2. The order dated 27-11-2000 which is impugned in the present petition, has been passed by the 'First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad, respondent No. 1 whereby he had decided the application 14-Ga filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Order 7...
Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC704; (2003)IILLJ725All
M. Katju, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1999 by which the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant before the learned single Judge against the dismissal order dated 26.7.1985, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was a cashier in the service of the respondent No. 1 and he was charge-sheeted by the charge-sheet dated 3.2.1985 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Hesubmitted a reply to the charge-sheet dated 19.2.1985 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is alleged by the petitioner in paragraphs 17 to 19, 24 to 27 and 30 and 31 of the writ petition that thereafter, no oral enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner and instead, a show cause notice dated 10/15.4.1985, Annexure-6 to the writ petition was issued to him. He sent a reply dated 14.5.1985 and thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 26.7.1985, Anne...
Jagannath and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2702
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 25-7-1989 passed by Sri Dharam Paul, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao In S.T. No. 88 of 1985 convicting the accused-appellants under Section 307 IPC and sentencing them to undergo 5 years R,I.2. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No. 1 Jagannath has died, hence the appeal against Jagannath stands abated.3. I have heard the arguments of the parties' counsel and have gone through the record.4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the occurrence took place on 11-8-1978 at 6.00 p.m., while the FIR was lodged on 12-8-1978 at 9.55 a.m. No reliance can be placed on such an FIR in view of the ruling reported in 1972 Cri App R 280 : AIR 1973 SC 501, Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu. No doubt the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is good law, however, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the occurre...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2080
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura (U.P.), determining an amount of Rs. 2,70,800 as just compensation to which the claimants were found entitled to on account of the death of their only son Ganga Sharma in an accident which took place on 5.10.2000 involving the offending motor vehicle.2. The Tribunal after carefully considering the evidence and materials brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 p.m. and the extent of the dependency had been determined to be at a figure of Rs. 1,400 p.m. The multiplier of 16 had been utilised to arrive at the figure of the amount of compensation.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against the appellant by the Tribunal on crucial facts. It may be noticed that no permission as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Veh...
American Institute of English Language (P.) Ltd. Vs. NitIn Saraswat an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC342
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Defendant/Appellant. The learned counsel for the caveator-applicant who has put in appearance at this stage, has also been heard.2. The only submission urged and pressed in support of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, being violattve of the mandatory provisions contained under Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is not sustainable in law.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that considering the facts andcircumstances as brought on record and the nature of the Interim injunction sought for, it was incumbent upon the learned District Judge to record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay before granting the ex parte ad interim injunction, which was ignored altogether.4. We have searched in vain for any reason in the impugned order, a perus...
Surendra Nath Misra Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC693
M. Katju and G. K. Gupta, JJ.1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner is directed to serve respondent Nos. 4 to 7 personally within two weeks and they may file counter-affidavit within two weeks thereafter. List immediately thereafter. 2. We may add that when the Court orders a case to be listed after three weeks, or the Court grants three weeks time to file counter-affidavit and the Court orders that the case be listed thereafter, it means that the case must be listed positively on the 22nd day after that order has been passed, and it is not the discretion of the office to list it at any time after three weeks. The contrary view would mean that the office may list the case after ten years because ten years is also after three weeks. Similarly, when the Court grants two weeks time to file counter and two weeks for rejoinder-affidavit and directs the case to be listed thereafter, it means that the case must be positively listed on the 29th...
Pratibha Singh Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC708; II(2003)BC285
M. Katju and G. K. Gupta, JJ.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. The recovery is for a sum of Rs. 8,30,269.00 which is said to have been against the cash credit granted by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Amethi, Sultanpur.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Sharda Devi v. State of V. P. and Ors., (2001) 3 UPLBEC 1941 and has urged that the recovery cannot be made as an arrears of land revenue.4. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and find that it is distinguishable. It is to be noted that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction vide Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. D. Majumdar, AIR 1995 SC 1499 and M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 1888 (Para 5), etc. This means that the petitioner in a writ petition must not only show violation of law but must also show that equity is in his favour, vide Varanasi Motors v. C.I.T., 2000 (39) ALR 619. If only law is violat...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC226; 2004ACJ418; 2003(2)AWC1227
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the claimants-respondents.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of the award of an amount of Rs. 4,25,000 along with simple interest @ 9% per annum in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as compensation to the claimants-respondents on account of the untimely death of Ravindera Singh Chauhan and an amount of Rs. 2,94.000 on account of the death of Babbu alias Ram Bilas in the same accident involving the offending Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. MKA 9723, the appellant has now come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the impugned award.4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.5. The deceased Babbu was employed as a driver of the Motor Vehicle--a Truck bearing registration No. MKA 9723 which was owned by Devendra Kumar Mishra and was in...
Smt. R.S. Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC366; (2003)1UPLBEC81
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been removed by the State Government from the office of the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr under Section 48 (2) (a)/(b) of the U. P. Municipalities Act.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr in the election held in November, 2000 and her result was declared on 26.11.2000 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took oath of the office on 2.11.2000 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition.4. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that an agenda was circulated by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, on 4.12.2000 for convening the meeting of the Municipal Board on 11.12.2000 in which 24 members of the Boardincluding the petitioner were present. Two members of the Board were absent. In this ...
Gupta National Radios and Electric House Vs. Sagarmal Arora and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC965
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 23rd October, 2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad.2. The dispute relates to a Shop No. 2/75 (New No. 2/74) situated in Mohalla Nltganj North City. Farrukhabad. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed shop'.3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 1 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the respondent No. 2 alleging the latter to be the tenant. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 1997. A copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.4. It appears that during the pendency of the release application before the prescribed authority, the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »