Allahabad Court August 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.
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Town Education Society and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2912; [2002(94)FLR1223]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th October. 1982, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ballla in Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1981 allowing the defendants' appeal arising out of Original Suit No. 368 of 1975, Kanhaiya Lal v. Town Educational Society and Ors., decreeing the suit with costs against the defendants.2. Vide order dated 21.2.1983, the appeal was admitted on the question as to whether the suit was maintainable in civil court. It is alleged that the findings of the lower appellate court are manifestly erroneous and without jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was only for injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from terminating the services of the appellant and the view taken by the trial court was correct and that of the lower appellate court is manifestly erroneous.3. This case is covered by the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in t...
Dinesh Chandra Vs. Mulakh Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3107
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The aforesaid revision has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1987 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 1986.3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the revisionist from the shop in question. It is alleged that the defendant did not pay the rent and taxes inspite of demand notice since October, 1980.4. The revisionist has contested the aforesaid suit and filed his written statement. It is alleged that he is a tenant of the shop in question since 3rd May, 1969. He states that he has paid rent regularly till February, 1986 and therefore, he is not a defaulter.5. The respondent's case is that the suit was not maintainable under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as the defendant-appli...
Smt. Maya Rani and anr. Vs. Smt. Kusum Kumari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3014
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is the second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1980 passed by Sri V.N. Mehrotra, the then learned Additional District Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1980 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979 passed by the then learned civil Judge in Regular Suit No. 59 of 1978 which was a suit for cancellation of sale deed.2. The following question of law has been formulated in this appeal :'Whether the courts below have erred in recording findings to the effect that the impugned sale deed was got executed by practising fraud and under undue influence, etc.?'3. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the record.4. The Court trying a case of undue influence must consider two things to start with, namely. (1) are the relations between the vendor and the vendee such that the vendee is in a position to dominate the will of the vendor, and (2) has the vendee used that position to obtain an unfair advanta...
Suresh Kumar Bhargava Vs. Xvth Additional District and Sessions Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3095
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who is landlord of the accommodation in question, challenges the orders dated 13.4. 1994 and 25.1.1995, Annexures-4 and 6 to the writ petition, passed by prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, respectively.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of present petition are that petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the accommodation in question, which has been rejected by the prescribed authority vide his impugned order dated 13.4.1994 holding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide as also the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the tenant than the landlord. Being aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, the landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the...
Sidh Nath Agarwal Vs. Vinod Kumar Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3096
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.1990 passed by Shri A. C. Verma. Civil Judge. Kanpur Dehat in Original suit No. 350 of 1988 deciding issue No. 1 and holding that the suit is undervalued,3. The property involved in the suit is land and 35 shops which were constructed over it on ground floor and same construction made on first floor. The property is situated in Kasta Pukharayan in Kanpur Dehat and it has been valued at Rs. 50,000. Further cost of the land was also added at Rs. 1.50,000, which comes to Rs. 2 lacs. The shops have been constructed in the year 1990. The valuation of the construction of one room at that time was not less than Rs. 5,000. The court below has held that the construction even on taking very liberal view will not be less than Rs. 1,50,000. It has been submitted that issue No. 2 has been wrongly decided by the court below against the plaintiff for non-joind...
Committee of Management, Sri Narayan Sinha Inter College and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3137
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Shri Narayan Sinha Inter College, Sarai Harku, district Jaunpur, with the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 24.6.2000 passed by, the Director of Education (Madhyamik) U. P., Allahabad, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which he has held that after the ban imposed in the year, 1986, the management has appointed teachers in two subjects without creation of any posts. 3. The case of the petitioners is that by letter dated 22.7.1977 the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad gave recognition of the subject Geography for teaching in the Intermediate classes of the institution and permission was also granted for opening classes of Geography by order dated 30.12.1977, with certain conditions. The Manager of the college made an application on 14.12.1982, to the D.I.O.S. for creation of the post of the lecturer in Geography, The District...
Rajesh Rai Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3241
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in B.R.K. Inter College, Walidpur, district Mau. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.1.1995 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of difference in salary with effect from 8.1.1991 to 31.8.1994, has been denied. The petitioner has claimed for payment of his salary with all consequential benefits as Assistant Teacher with effect from 8.1.1991 to 31.8.1994 after deducting amount of salary of the petitioner already paid to him for the post of peon.3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis by the Committee of Management of the college on 8.1.1991 and he joined his duties on 8.1.1991. Since then he is continuously working as Assistant Teacher in the college in question but in absence of a formal order ofapproval, he was not pa...
Syed Mohammed Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2195
A.K. Yog, J. 1. The undisputed facts relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy in the present writ petition are as follows :Sayed Mohammad Mahfooz, the petitioner had worked as Assistant Accountant from 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998 in Hamirpur, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, called the Sahkari Sangh vide appointment letter dated November 26, 1994/Annexure 2 to the petition in connection with Central Sector Yojana for one year on contract basis at a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appointment letter also categorically mentioned that appointment was to come to an end automatically after expiry of one year the appointment was absolutely temporary and services were liable to be determined any time on one month' notice; petitioner has filed certificate, in proof of the fact that he did work as Assistant Account in the said Sahkari Sangh w.e.f., 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998; the petitioner admittedly worked as an employee of the said Sahkari Sangh up to 31.3.1998/Annexure ...
Tasneem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4578
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police who was at the relevant time posted in Hathras. A perusal of the impugned FIR dated 25-6-2002 shows that the Police of Hathras Kotwali had taken away the father of the first Informant Salini Khan on 27/28th July. 1999 at midnight to the Kotwali. On 3-7-1999 in the morning the police from the Kotwali arrested Deen Mohd. the brother of the first informant and the petitioner forcibly took away Rupees 10,000/- from Deen Mohd. The petitioner is also said to have threatened the petitioner (sic) and his brother that if they came near the Kotwali they will be put in Jail.2. The police are supposed to protect the public and not to rob them. This just shows the degradation to which our society has sunk. The Rakshak has become a Bhakshak. In such cases no sympathy should be shown.3. A perusal of the FIR shows that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The petition is dismissed....
Kalika Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR847]; (2003)2UPLBEC1885
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order with notice of retirement dated 26th June, 1998 retiring him at the age of 58 years, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The second relief sought by means of this writ petition is for issuing mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the department till he attains the age of 60 years i.e., 31.5.2000.3. The facts of the case are that petitioner's date of birth is 6.5.40 and he is High School fail. Reliance has been placed on the G.O. No. G-496/Das-534(19)-57 Lucknow, dated 28th July, 1987. By this G.O. Fundamental Rule 56(A) was amended and it is contended that by virtue of the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and his pre-mature retirement at the age of 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »