Allahabad Court July 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.
Durga Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2814; (2002)3UPLBEC2550
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The controversy raised in all the three writ petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition No. 25021 of 1999 Durga Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., shall be treated as the leading case.2. The relief claimed in the writ petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing (a) the U. P. Public Service Commission to forward the entire list of candidates, who had appeared in U. P. Nyayik Sewa (Junior Division) Examination, 1997, and have secured minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Commission to the State Government (b) the State Government to consider the petitioners for making appointments against total number of vacancies which have fallen vacant in the years 1991 to 1997 being 198 (or 214, on the basis of cadre strength) ; (c) to calculate and fill up the vacancies which have been caused due to compulsory retirement, death or termination of service of officers and also 'creation of new posts of Civil J...
Dhanpal Singh and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand V, U.P. Av ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3290
Sudhir Narain and O. P. Srivastava, JJ. 1. The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the Executive Engineer. Construction Division V of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Meerut (respondent No. 1) has issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar (Registration), Meerut (respondent No. 4) not to register any sale deed or agreement to sell in respect of the land which has been notified for acquisition under Section 28 ' of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (in short 'the Adhiniyam') proposing to acquire the land mentioned in the said notification. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 1, has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the Sub-Registrar (Registration), respondent No. 4, directing him not to register any sale deed or agreement in respect of the land which is covered by notification under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. 3. Shri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the ...
Sahid Ahmed and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2618
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Revisional Court in J.S.C.C. Revision No. 243 of 1988, whereby the petitioners-tenant have challenged the order passed by Judge, Small Causes in a suit filed by the respondent-landlord.2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that Mukhtar Ahmed and his wife filed suit against the petitioners-tenant and their predecessors, which was decreed by the trial court on 22.9.1988 after rejecting the objection raised by the tenant-petitioners that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and, therefore, the suit is not entertainable by the Judge, Small Causes Court in view of Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The trial court has gone into that question and arrived at the conclusion after discussing the evidence led by the parties that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and provisions of U. ...
Chandra Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Parhlad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2681
U.S. Trlpathi, J.1. This Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, in Civil Appeal No. 360 of 1998 allowing the appeal, reversing the judgment and decree, i.e., dismissal of the suit recorded by the trial court dated 7.8.1998 in Original Suit No. 5 of 1990 and decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance.2. Prahlad Slngh-respondent No. 1 and Nlranjan Slngh, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) filed suit against Rati Ram, father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and grandfather of appellant No. 4 (hereafter called the defendant) for specific performance of contract dated 19.9.1986 with the allegations that the defendant agreed to sell his plot Nos. 803 and 804 in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 1,28,400 and in lieu of it, executed a registered agreement deed dated 19.9.1986 after receiving a sum of Rs. 11,000, before the Sub-...
Monika Ohri and ors. Vs. Amit Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2002All322
ORDER1. The three petitioners, who are related as daughter, mother and father and stand impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in the Matrimonial Petition No. 172 of 1997 filed before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) by Respondent No. 1 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking grant of a decree for divorce of petitioner No. 1 dissolving their marriage and for a declaration that it is null and void as contained in Annexure 1, have knocked the doors of this constitutional Court taking aid of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for (i) quashing by grant of writ of Certiorari the proceedings of Matrimonial Petition No. 172 of 1997 aforesaid (ii) and restraining respondent No. 2 by grant of a writ of Prohibition from proceeding with the aforementioned petition.2. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 13 of the Matrimonial Petition aforementioned reads as follows -' 1. That the petitioner is resident of village Chandauki, Pergana Sikandra, Tehsil...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2756
S.R. Singh, J.1. Impugned in Writ No. 9332 of 2002 is the validity and legality of the order dated 3.11.2001 passed by the Hearing Authority and in the other writ petition, the validity of the scheme dated 13.2.1986 published under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'Repealed Act') as it stands modified by the aforestated impugned order is also questioned.2. The facts insofar as they are relevant to the controversy involved herein are briefly stated as these. A draft scheme under Section 68C of the Repealed Act was published on February 26, 1959 with a view to nationalise the Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route. The draft scheme aforestated as approved was published on September 29, 1959 but in two groups of writ petitions filed in this Court, the same came to be quashed by judgments dated October 31, 1961 and February 7, 1962 as against 50 operators on the ground that they were not afforded opportunity of hearing and was upheld against other 50 operators. The judgments ...
Gopal Lal Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2787
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 14.9.2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed by the revislonal court, whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 27.3.1999, passed by the trial court.2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the landlord-respondent No. 2, Sharad Chandra Mishra filed a suit bearingSuit No, 156 of 1994 for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from House No. CK-32/1, 2, 3, Mohalla Nepali Khapra, Varanasi, which is a non-residential accommodation in which one late Smt. Gangajali was the tenant. Originally it was let out to Kedar Nath, who was tenant and after his death, tenancy was inherited by his wife. Kedar Nath had no offspring and the petitioner is his foster son. Gangajali died and the petitioner who is foster son continued in possession and he claimed inheritance in tenancy firstly on the ground of...
Govind Prasad Gupta and anr. Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Financi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2823; I(2003)BC296; [2004]54SCL249(All); (2002)3UPLBEC2782
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 26.3.2002 issued by the U. P. Financial Corporation against the petitioners (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and further for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 26.3.2002 as barred by limitation for recovery of the loan of the year 1986.2. It is, inter alia, alleged by the petitioners that GEE Kay Pipes Pvt. Ltd., is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and that the petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director and the petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the said company, and that the U. P. Financial Corporations agreed in the financial year 1986-87 to grant term loan of Rs. 27,86,250 for machinery equipment and other asset...
Sita Devi Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2857; [2002(94)FLR1219]; (2002)3UPLBEC2554
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 1.1.1979 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, respondent No. 2, terminating her services.2. The version of the petitioner is that she was recruited as a Lady Constable on 12.11.1974 on temporary basis but against a clear vacancy, Her aunt, Smt. Kutuma Devi, was holding a gun licence which was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur but Smt. Kutuma Devi got the impression that her licence was cancelled on the complaint made by the petitioner against her because there was a family dispute in their family and the petitioner being a lady constable could influence the authority to get her licence cancelled. Smt. Kutuma Devi is alleged to have made a complaint to the superior officers of the police department against the petitioner and on her complaint, one Shri Jitendra Kumar, A.S.P., was appointed as the enquiry officer who took statements of Smt. Kutuma...
Radhey Shyam Garg and anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC61; (2003)1UPLBEC932
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Recovery Certificate as well as Citations dated 15.4.2002 and 16.4.2002 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition), and further, for issuance of a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or prohibition restraining/ prohibiting the respondents from realization of any amount from the petitioners in pursuance of the said Recovery Certificate and Citation. 2. The petitioners have, inter alia, alleged in the writ petition that they were Directors of Om Steel and Alloys--unit of Om Refrigeration Private Limited, Faizabad which was a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act; and that Om Steel and Alloys sought financial assistance from U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur for establishing the unit; and that a loan of rupees sixty lacs wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »