Allahabad Court January 2003 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.
Smt. Urmila Devi and ors. Vs. Nagar Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All158; 2003(3)AWC2028
ORDERN.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115, C.P.C, against the order dated 22-8-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow issuing notice on injunction application filed by the applicants in the Regular Suit No. 144 of 2001 (Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors. v. Nagar Nigam, Lucknow) by which the learned Civil Judge has found that there is no justification for granting an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and has directed to issue notice fixing 7-9-2001 for disposal of application No. 6-C for ad-interim injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff-revisionists are the owners in possession of the premises No. 292/4-A situated at Tulsidas Marg, known as Victoria Street, Lucknow since last over six decades. In a portion of the said premises, the revisionists reside while in a portion thereof, they are running an oil mill under the name and style of 'Narain Oil Mill' since the year 1945. The said firm of the...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramashray Chauhan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC333; 2003(2)AWC1158
S.P. Srivastava, A.C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the insurer-appellant. Sri S. D. Ojha, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, who has put in appearance at this stage, has also been heard.2. The present appeal has been filed by the insurer-appellant feeling aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 2,30,090, determined as just compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to which the claimant-respondent No. 1 was found entitled to on account of 80 per cent disability suffered by him on account of the accident involving the offending motor vehicle, which had been insured by the present appellant covering the risks.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that there was a breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued by the appellant covering the risk. The contention is that the claimant had failed to establish that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by a person having a valid driving licence issued...
Dr. Rahat Azim Vs. Joint Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1383
S.P. Srivastava, A.C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents. 2. Perused the record. 3. The present appellant was a co-petitioner in C.M. Writ Petition No. 50544 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was directed against an order dated 7.11.2002, passed by the Joint Director of Education. The Writ Petition No. 50544 of 2002 was finally heard and disposed of vide the order of this Court dated 26th November, 2002, whereby the order dated 7.11.2002 was quashed with certain directions. Pursuant to the directions, the controversy was to be decided by the concerned committee after hearing both the parties within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the final order passed by this Court was presented before the concerned committee. 4. Inspite of the fact that the order dated 7.11.2002, had been quashed, another writ petition claiming quashing of the said order, being Writ Petition No. 1290 of 20...
Chhedi Ram (D) and anr. Vs. Om Prakash Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1612
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 9.5.1995 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bahraich, allowing the application of the plaintiff for striking off defence in S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1988,2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction after determination of the lease of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with the allegations that there was an agreement between the parties and the defendant had paid Rs. 3,000 as an advance and the shop in question was let out at the rate of 300 per month for a period of five years. The advance amount was to be adjusted in the rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and Rs. 250 per month was to be paid every month as rent. The defendant had adjusted the advance amount during the period from 1.8.1980 to 1.8.1985 but the shop was not vacated. According to the agreement again...
Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1736b; (1996)3UPLBEC1814
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order of termination dated 13.10.1986, passed by the opposite party No. 3 Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division-I, Lucknow and for mandamus to hold the provisions of Rule 4 read with Rule 9 and Rule 8 of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as ultra vires and further a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service without interruption and also to regularise the services of the petitioner in accordance with Regularisation Rules and give him full consequential benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he was given appointment on the post of 'Gotakhor' by the opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 7.5.1983 (Annexure-1). He joined the post of 'Gotakhor' on 7.5.1983 and since then, he has been performing his duties without any c...
Rajeev Agarwal and ors. Vs. Ramesh Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1740
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The aforesaid two civil revisions have been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 94 of 1999, Ramesh Pal Singh and Ors. v. Rajeev Agarwal and Ors., on the application 81C-2 moved by the defendants.2. Civil Suit No. 94 of 1999 was filed by the revisionists of Civil Revision No. 7 of 2003 with the allegations that in order to run the business of Transportation/ Forwarding they took a loan of Rs. 3,25,000 from the defendants on 14.1.1997 and purchased 'Isher Canter (UP- 34A/8750)'. According to the loan agreement, the plaintiff has to pay off the loan in 36 instalments at the rate of Rs. 13,360. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff deposited monthly instalments regularly and paid Rs. 2,75,720 and obtained the receipt duly executed by the defendants. When in the month of January, 1999, the defendants refused to accept the instalment and to issue receipt and threatened the ...
Naresh Pandey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC92
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J. 1. Appellant, Naresh Pandey, has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi. By the impugned order the appellant has been convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 4985, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine two years rigorous imprisonment has been ordered.2. Sri P.N. Misra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State have been heard.3. On 1.3.1996 P.W. 2 Sub-Inspector Pradeep Kumar Verma alongwith P.W. 1 Constable Baamdeo Tiwari and two other constables were engaged in law and order duty in the area of outpost Dashashomedh, Varanasi. He received information that the appellant was having contraband charas for sale on Man Mandir Ghat. The appellant was arrested at 4.45 P.M. by the Sub In...
Kameshwar Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3450
ORDERN.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5-9-1994 passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 450/1989 under Sections 394, 397 I.P.C., State v. Kameshwar convicting and sentencing him to ten years' R. I.2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the prosecution story in the night of 3-1-1987 at about 1.00 a.m. in village Palia, Tekghar, P.S. Maharajganj, District-Faizabad appellant Kameshwar along with 2-3 bandits committed robbery at the house of the complainant Prahlad and Ram Kumar and while committing robbery, he fired with country made pistol hitting Bhola Yadav and Smt. Jagwanta and his associates used lathi and danda and caused injuries to Ram Kumar.3. The accused was charged under Sections 394 and 397, I.P.C. separately.4. Prosecution examined Prahlad as P.W. 1, Bhola as P.W. 2, Lalloo as P.W. 3, Dr. B. Bhargava as P.W. 4 and S.I. Harish Chandra as P.W. 5.5. According to the prosecution story, three persons ...
inder Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3434
ORDEROnkareswar Bhatt, J. 1. Appellants, Inder Singh, Himmat Singh, Ram Swarup, Arjun Singh, Indrapal Singh, Murli Singh, Basudeo, Sukhdeo Singh, Hanumant Singh, Samrath Singh, Harnam Singh, Mahendra Singh, Badan Singh, Babu Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Sewak, have preferred this appeal against the order of their conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 14-11-1980 in Sessions Trial No. A 73 of 1976. Appellants Inder Singh, Himmat Singh, Ram Swarup, Arjun Singh and Indrapal Singh have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395/397, I.P.C. while the remaining appellants have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, I.P.C. The Government appeal has been filed for enhancement of the sentence.2. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard.3. According to the prosecution case informant...
Yashwant Singh Vs. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC764
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri B.L Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri V.K. Singh for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of at this stage.2. The brief facts of this case are that in the year 1988, the petitioner was appointed as Head Master of the institution run by the respondent No. 3 for which due approval was accorded by the respondent No. 1, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jhansi on 31.3.1994. In May, 2001, the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management, Shree Shanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg, Jhansi, stopped the payment of salary to the petitioner against which the petitioner approached the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and even on the directions of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the salary was not paid to the petitioner. Thereafter vide order dated 20.4.2002, the respondent No. 3 placed the petitioner under suspension, which orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »