Allahabad Court May 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.
MoIn UddIn Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1959
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.2002, passed by the appellate court in M.C.A. No. 18 of 1998 filed by the landlord Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the appellate court has set aside the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the prescribed authority.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a tenant in shop in dispute, is carrying on a business of repairing of Cycle and Rikshaw in the shop in dispute and it is also the case set up by the petitioner-tenant that his tenancy is coming down from more than 40 years. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that his son Rajeev, who is not good in education, is 19 years old and now is not inclined to study further, therefore, the shop in dispute is required for starting a...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Special C.J.M./Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1962
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel, representing the respondent.2. Petitioner has filed supplementary-affidavit today. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it has been stated that against the order dated 10th April, 2002 petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The sadar munsrim of District Judge Kanpur Nagar, has given a report that since the appeal has been filed after the order rejecting the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. On the basis of the report of the sadar munsrim, the appeal has been returned back by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar observing that appeal is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act. Petitioner has also annexed the original copy of the memorandum of the appeal and the same has been returned to the petitioner. The Section 22 of Act is ...
Ram Singh Yadav Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1935; [2002(94)FLR11]; (2002)3UPLBEC2139
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2, Collector, Kanpur Dehat, to absorb him on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins in view of the order dated 26.12.1996. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.2. The brief resume of the facts necessary for Just decision of the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was duly selected by the Selection Committee on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1995 decided on 3.4.1995 whereby the Collector, Kanpur Dehat, was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for his absorption on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins strictly adhering to the provisions contained in U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 197...
Raees Khan and anr. Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Rampur and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2010
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of the trial court whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the landlord on the ground of sub-letting and the revisional court confirmed the order of the trial court. 2. The landlord plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that Races Khan defendant No. 1 was a tenant and he sub-let the shop in dispute to Ameer Khan who is his own brother. Admittedly, the tenancy was in the name of Races Khan. The parties led the evidence before the trial court. The trial court arrived at the finding that from the evidence available on record, it !s clear that Races Khan has sub-let the shop in dispute in favour of defendant No. 2, Ameer Khan. The aforesaid order and decree of the trial court has been confirmed by the revisional court. A suit with regard to arrears of rent has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from the evidence on record,...
Bachanu Ram Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2003
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Since these two writ petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore, are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 26.4.1999, passed by the respondent No. 1 in revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mirzapur. It so happened that the respondent No. 3, Mandavi Prasad Singh filed Suit No. 466 of 1987 on 10.12,1987 against the petitioner for the relief that charge be directed to be declared over the land in dispute for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,429 as principal sum along with interest up to the date of the suit pendente lite in case the defendant does not pay the amount within the definite period, the plaintiff can realise the amount from the sale of the property. The suit was filed with the allegation that the registered sale deed was executed by the plaintiff, Mandavi Prasad Singh of ...
Dr. J.P. Kulsreshtha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2167; [2002(94)FLR406]
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are retired Professors of Allahabad University and are receiving pension as retired teachers. Originally, the grievance of the petitioners in this petition was that the pension be paid to them was less than 50% of the basic salary applicable to the post of Professor of State Universities as revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is stated that monthly pension of each of the petitioners is far less than Rs. 8,200.3. By the order dated 26.2.1999, Annexure-5 to the writ petition the State Government revised the pensionary benefit of teachers of State Universities w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and by the order dated 13.4.2000 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the State Government notified that the pension payable to the pensioners would not be less than 50% of the minimum of pay scale from 1.1.1996. This decision was, however, not made applicable to retired teachers of Slate Universities, ...
Chandan Singh Rathi Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2284; [2002(94)FLR1113]; (2002)3UPLBEC2265
R.B. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 9.4.1999 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby the service of the petitioner has been dismissed.2. Heard Sri M.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 21.12.1982 to the post of Class III as Ahalmad under the control of District Magistrate, Meerut at the relevant time now under the control of District Magistrate, NOIDA district Gautam Budh Nagar. While working in Land Acquisition Unit 'NOIDA' Ghaziabad, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 19.3.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). A charge-sheet dated 14.3.1997 was served to the petitioner along with suspension order. The petitioner made a representation dated 1.4.1997 forsupply of the documents/inspection by giving a list of 17 documents so that the petitioner may give e...
Gani Master Vs. District Judge, Varanasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1811
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, was allowed by me vide my order dated 9th May, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid petition. 2. Petitioner, who is the tenant of the building in question, has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, as would be clear from the fact that he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972(hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), before the court below concerned and since then matter is pending. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the building in question, whereupon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Prescribed Authority) directed the Rent Control Inspector to submitinspection report who, on its turn, has submitted his inspection report dated 4.8.1998 and found that at the time of inspection, one Chh...
Raghubansh Mani and anr. Vs. Special Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2062
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the landlord for eviction and arrears of rent against the tenant respondent No. 3, the trial court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that since the question of title is involved, the small cause court have no Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question involved in the suit, therefore, the suit was wrongly presented, before the small cause court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-landlord preferred revision and the revisional court upheld the order of the trial court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that though he has no dispute regarding the findings of the lower courts, which have arisen for sake of the arguments, but the question is that the Court may take up the case and the suit be returnedto the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate court. Learned counsel has reli...
Ram Shankar Yadav Vs. Xvth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2500
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petition is heard finally at the admission stage. The amendment application No. 27528 of 2001, filed on 26/27.3.2001 on behalf of petitioner. Is not pressed and it is rejected as such.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are redundant parties.4. Respondent No. 3. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, is represented by counsel and also filed counter-affidavit.5. Present petition arises out of the proceedings initiated on the basisof application for allotment under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') with respect to non-residential building shop No. 80, Pardevanpur. N-2 Road. Lal Bangla, Kanpur Nagar (called 'the shop') informing vacancy and seeking allotment of the same after rejecting release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi.6. Petitioner Ram Shanker Yadav contended that he was the tenant of the shop at the rate of Rs. 300...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »