Allahabad Court April 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Sudarshan Lal Talwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1881
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This revision has been preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree for eviction and recovery of. arrears of rent passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2001 by XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 20.8.2001.2. The facts in brief are as follows :The opposite party filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged in the plaint that the revisionists were tenant of the disputed premises No. 7/258 old and 7/213 new, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar at rental of Rs. 15,000 per month ; that the premises is non-residential ; that the tenancy has been terminated by notice dated 5.7.2000 which was served on revisionist No, 2 on 7.7,2000 ; that the premises has not been vacated, hence the suit was filed.3. The defence taken in the written statement filed by the revisionist No, 1 through revisionist No. 2 is that the rent has been accepted after termination of the tenancy and, therefore, the notice stands wa...
Vijendra Pal Singh Vs. Senior Regional Manager, F.C.i. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1884
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Sri Satya Prakash has accepted notice on behalf of the Food Corporation of India and may file counter-affidavit within four weeks. List thereafter.2. A perusal of the record of this petition shows that this writ petition was originally filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in August, 1988. It kept pending at Lucknow and on 23.4.2001, a Division Bench at Lucknow passed an order calling for a reply within ten days. Subsequently, it appears that an application under Clause 14 of the U. P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 was filed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and by an order dated 13.12.2001, Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an order transferring the case to Allahabad.3. This writ petition is a typical instance of how petitions which are not pertaining to Lucknow Bench at all, inasmuch as no part of the cause of action has arisen within Avadh area, are being filed in the Lucknow Bench of this Court and are unfortunately being entertained a...
Ram Adhar and ors. Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2076
Kamal Kishore, J. 1. This is the second appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Pratapgarh by allowing the first appeal and setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 34 of 1975 which was for demolition and possession, etc. 2. This second appeal has been admitted on substantial question of law No. 4 which runs as follows : 'Whether non-consideration of the material evidence on record including the Commissioner's map and report by the lower appellate court and the findings recorded as such stand vitiated?'3. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for defendants-appellants that the learned first appellate court has erred in not considering the material evidence on record Including the Commissioner's map and report, and hence, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court stands vitiated. It has...
Nauratan Mal Daga and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ694
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of complaint case No. 39 of 1994 Rajiv Gupta v. Nauratan and others under Sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. pending in the Court of IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and the orders passed in that case.2. The complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 which is Annexure-1 to the petition in which it was alleged that he is the manager of M/s. Mithlesh Handloom Factory which supply cloths to the dealers; that the revisionists who are resident of Alipur Dwar in West Bengal were known to the complainant from before and used to visit the premises of the complainant. On 11-3-1992 they visited the premises of the complainant and seen the clothes and booked order No. 491 and agreed to pay the price within two months of the receipt of the goods; that the goods were, therefore, supplied by the complainant during the period from 21-3-1992 to 31-3-1992. However, the revisionists did not pay...
Lal Chandra Vs. Vice-chancellor, Allahabad University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1897
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the materials available on record.3. In the present case on 6.3.2002, the learned counsel representing contesting respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was directed to produce relevant record of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 6.3.2002, the learned counsel representing contesting respondents has produced the original record relating to cancellation of LL.B. Part 1 Second Examination of 1997 of petitioner.4. The learned counsel Sri A. K. Goel, representing contesting respondents invited my attention to Chapter XXVIII of Ordinances of Allahabad University relating to Ordinances on the use of unfairmeans and causing disturbances in examination, (hereinafter referred to as Use of Unfairmeans Ordinances). He also Invited my attention to Ordinance 1.2 Definitions of 'Unfairmeans' and 'Possession of unauthorised material'. He brought to my notice the amendment approved by Academic Council on 8.1.2001 wherein it is provided that a candidate found using unfair...
Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2132; [2002(93)FLR894]; (2002)2UPLBEC1451
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri Neeraj Tripathi for respondent No. 5 and SriReghavendra Dwivedi for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.2. The petitioner was appointed vide appointment order dated 1.4.2000 in a purely ad hoc capacity as Tax Officer in the service of Zila Panchayat. Allahabad. The appointment order itself states that the petitioner's appointment is ad hoc and for a maximum period of one year, it further states that the appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time. Thereafter the petitioner's service was extended in ad hoc capacity for one year from 1.4.2001 or till regularly selected candidate was available, whichever was earlier, fide order dated 23.7.2001. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thus, this extension order dated 23.7.2001 continued the petitioner's service only till 31.3.2002.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to continue t...
Nand Lal Chaturvedi Vs. Iv Additional District Judge, Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2153
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents in both the writ petitions which raises common question of law, hence disposed of by this common order. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Nand Lal Chaturvedi challenged the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 107 of 2000 and order dated 27.6.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 in Suit No. 218 of 1991, Annexurcs-1 and 2 to the writ petition whereby the revisional Court has confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Officer and Eviction Officer on the application filed by the petitioner for declaring the vacancy in the premises in question, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has no right to file the application as he is neither the landlord, nor the owne...
Rana Bhupendra Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2153a
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the same time will be consumed as in disposing of the stay vacation application, so the matter may be decided finally. Sri Yasharth counsel for the respondent agreed to it. So with the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14.9.1990 and 1.4.1991 whereby the accommodation in dispute which is said to be in occupation of the petitioner, has been declared to be vacant by the second order dated 1.4.1991. It was released on the application of the respondent-landlord and by the third order dated 30.11.1999, the review application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically asserted that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 14.9.1990 and 1.4.1991. This fact has...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Bala Ji Traders
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]130STC89(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. These two trade tax revisions (1) T.T.R. No. 118 of 2002 and (2) T.T.R. No. 119 of 2002 have been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, called ('the Act'), by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., the applicant/revisionist against the order dated December 26, 2001, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 163 of 2001.2. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant/revisionist and Sri Piyush Agrawal for the opposite party.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the revisions arethat on information the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Bijnor,examined vehicle No. U.P.-21 G/9761 carrying 'menthol'. On anapprehension that the goods are not carried on the proper andgenuine documents, hence the same were detained and notice datedAugust 4, 2001 (annexure 1) was issued. The authorities were notsatisfied with the reply filed by the dealer, therefore, the entireconsignment was seized and a security of Rs. 4,08,240 was demande...
Dhruv NaraIn Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2108b
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri N. Mishra may file counter affidavit within three weeks. List thereafter.2. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has stated before us that in many cases letters could not be sent from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel to the concerned Departments and its officers regarding the orders of the Court for filing counter affidavit etc. because there is no money to pay for the postage. He has also stated that the Government Counsels/Standing Counsels have great difficulty in their functioning because there are no fax machines as well as no official telephones at the residence of the Additional Chief Standing Counsels, the Standing Counsels and also the Additional Government Advocates. They have no individual P.S. or Peon and even their scales and fee have not been properly revised. There is no library budget since 1998 for purchase of books for the State Law Officers Libr...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›