Allahabad Court October 2003 Judgments
Ghurhu Vs. Xth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC259
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and perused the record.2. An Original Suit No. 122 of 1988 was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 3 Bechai for injunction against the respondent No. 4 Bechan, who was initially arrayed as the sole defendant. The petitioner Ghurhu was subsequently impleaded and arrayed as defendant No. 2. It is not disputed that Bechan, defendant No. 1 was owner of half of the portion of the land on the basis of the sale deed executed by one Hukku, who was the brother of the father of defendant No. 2 -petitioner. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 claims to be the owner of the other half portion of the property. Allegedly the plaintiff claimed possession on the basis of oral permission having been granted to him by the father of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an Amin-commissioner was appointed for on the spot inspection of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Fida HusaIn Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC211
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation filed by landlord-respondent. The suit was initially filed on 28.9.1977 before regular civil court/Munsif. The plaint was later on by order dated 17.8.1978 returned for filing before J.S.C.C. and it was accordingly thereafter filed before J.S.C.C. and registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 47 of 1978. The suit was decreed on 6.8.1981 by IInd Additional Civil Judge/J.S.C.C., Azamgarh. The revision filed against the same being Revision No. 172 of 1981 was also dismissed by 6th Additional District Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 18.11.1982. Review petition was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 8.3.1983. Hence this writ petition.2. According to brief allegations in the plaint the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1970, that the rate of rent was Rs. 25 per month till Octobe...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Charan Alias Chand Vs. Km. Nirja and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC278
S.U. Khan, J.1. Application Nos. 136929 of 2003 filed by tenant-petitioner on 11.8.2003 and 191525 of 2003 filed by landlord-respondent on 14.8.2003 are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51135 of 2002) has been filed by tenant-petitioner against judgment and orders passed against him by prescribed authority under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C., Meerut, by its judgment and order dated 14.3.2002, allowed the release application which was numbered as P.A. Case No. 51 of 2000. Appeal numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2002 was dismissed with slight modification by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut, through judgment and order dated 14.11.2002. Through order dated 30.11.2002, passed in the writ petition eviction of tenant-petitioner was stayed till 31.1.2003. The stay order was extended from ...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Dharam Samaj Society Inter College and ors. V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC268
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Both these writ petitions relate to the same society, namely, Dharam Samaj Society Inter College and Sanskrit Pathshala, Aligarh and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18254 of 2000 has been filed by the three petitioners claiming themselves to be the Committee of Management, Dharam Samaj Society Inter College and Sanskrit Pathshala, Secretary-cum-Manager and members of the General Body of the said society seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27th March, 2000, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Aligarh, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure-32 to the writ petition and the order dated 25th March, 2000 passed by the Registrar, Firms. Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure-31 to the writ petition, as also the order dated 12th November, 1999, passed by the Assistant Registrar, responden...
Tag this Judgment!Maha Laxmi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All164; 2004(1)AWC483; III(2004)BC43; (2004)1UPLBEC242
Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.1.2000, Annexure-19 to the writ petition by which the petitioner's prayer for rehabilitation of its units have been rejected by the competent authority and the petitioner was directed to liquidate the liabilities of the respondent or give the proposal for one time settlement within fifteen days of the issuance of the letter failing which coercive steps will be taken for realisation of the dues of the Corporation.2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.3. The petitioner had taken a loan from the U.P. Financial Corporation but when it did not repay the same proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act were initiated against it. The petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Deoria along with an application for temporary injunction in which the Civil Judge on 29.10.1993, passed an order restraining the respondents from recovering any amount in question from the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chameli Devi Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC660
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition. The main question involved in this petition is as to whether the deposits made by tenant-petitioner under Section 30 of U. P, Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were valid deposit or not. Landlord-respondent filed suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of rent against tenant-petitioner numbered as S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1988. In the suit tenant-petitioner pleaded that he had validly deposited the entire prior rent under Section 30 of the Act and subsequently rent was deposited by him in the suit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial court/J.S.C.C., Pilibhit accepted the contention of the tenant-petitioner and held that in view of deposit under Section 30, which was valid and subsequent deposit in the suit itself, the tenant-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. Accordingly, trial court/J.S.C.C., Pilibhlt through judgment dated 27.5.1989 dismissed the suit of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC664; (2004)1UPLBEC258
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.8.2003 and 30.9.2003 (Annexures-6 and 8) passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, by which the decision has been taken to have a fresh election for Block Pramukh of blocks Vikram Jot and Dubaulia.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been elected as a Block Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat Vikram Jot, District Basti under the provisions of the U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Adhiniyam, 1961'), on 8.3.2001, as he had earlier been elected as a member of Kshettra Panchayat on 26.6.2000 and a member of the Block Development Committee from Gram Panchayat, Dubaulia of the said block. Subsequently, the State Government, in exercise of its power under the Adhiniyam, 1961 carved out new block in the name of Dubaulia having certain villages from block Vikram Jot, block Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Gupta Vs. Prescribed Authority/ixth A.C.M.M. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC656
S.U. Khan, J.1. Respondent No. 2 initiated eviction proceedings against petitioner under Section 2A of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before Prescribed Authority/IXth Additional C.M.M., respondent No. 1 Kanpur Nagar, which were registered as rent case No. 138 of 1992. The said application was allowed on 26.10.1993. This writ petition is directed against the said order.2. Respondent No. 2 stated that petitioner was inducted in the accommodation in dispute as licensee in June, 1988 on monthly rent/licence fee of Rs. 275. Respondent No. 2 also filed a rent deed/licence deed. He also filed photocopy of intimation dated 16.6.1988 given to District Magistrate allegedly by both, i.e., respondent No. 2 and petitioner. It is significant to note that in the original application under Section 2A of the Act nothing was said with regard to the deed dated 16.6.1988 or the joint intimation given to District Magistrate of the same date.3. Application for eviction of the licensee can be filed under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Shitla Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1106
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties at length and perused the orchard.2. U.P. Public Service Commission/Respondent No. 3 placed its original record + original marks competitive sheets in sealed cover and we perused them also.Shitla Singh petitioner has approached this Court through present Writ Petition No. 47231 of 2003, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and claims following reliefs :(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from appointing respondent No. 4 Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in U.P. Nyayik Seva;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of curative mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the U.P. Nyayik Seva;(c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;(d) Award costs of the petition to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sharief Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC250
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. This Court on 10.9.2003 granted time to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit. But till date no counter-affidavit is filed.2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to issue a non-prohibited arm licence of D.B.B.L to the petitioner within shortest period fixed by this Court.3. I am afraid that this Court cannot issue a direction to issue a licence under the Arms Act which is within the domain of the licensing authority.4. However, if the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence has not been disposed of by the licensing authority, licensing authority is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »