Allahabad Court October 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. Tara Devi and anr. Vs. Awadh NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC773b
Umeshwar Pandey, J. 1. The appellants-plaintiffs in the present First Appeal From Order challenge the judgment and order dated 16.2.2000 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jaunpur passed in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1998 remanding the case after setting aside trial court's judgment dated 6.1.1984 whereby it (trial court) had decreed the suit for specific performance of contract.2. The plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 13.2.1979 and had prayed before the Court to direct the respondents-defendants to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement, else the same may be executed by the Court itself. The suit was contested by the defendants and written statement was filed. The parties in support of their contentions/pleadings led evidence before the trial court and after closure of evidence and upon giving full hearing to the parties, the suit was decreed. The defendants thereupon preferred the First Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 79 ...
In Re: Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CompLJ451(All); [2004]52SCL517(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Both these company petitions have been filed under Sections 433, 434, 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, with a prayer to wind up Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd. (hereinafter called as the company) under the directions of the court and to appoint any fit or proper person as liquidator of the company with authority to take charge over the assets of the company in accordance with law, with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956, and for other reliefs.2. The company petitions were presented on 27.8.1999. On 23.9.1999, notice was directed to be issued to the company to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted and advertised, fixing the matter on 3.11.1999 by which date the company was required to give its reply. A supplementary affidavit of Sri Sushil Kumar Dhandhania, Chairman-cum-director, Dhandhania Brothers (P) Ltd., 4, Middleton Street, Calcutta, was filed, deposing that statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act was sent by registered post t...
Registrar of Companies Vs. Kamal Infosys Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL303(All)
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. These company petitions have been filed by Registrar of Companies U.P. and Uttaranchal, Kanpur under Section 439(e) and (f) of Companies Act for winding up of several companies. In every petition respondent No. 1 is the company sought to be wound up by the said petitioner.2. As is apparent from the very first order passed in these petitions on 24-11-2001 (petitions were filed on 23-11-2001), the companies and their directors are being prosecuted as per investigation made by C.B.I. It revealed that the companies had cheated several thousands of investors, banks and financial institutions through forgery and by corrupt/illegal business. C.B.I, submitted a report on 20/23-8-2001 stating therein that it had registered criminal cases against the directors of the said companies. By the aforesaid order of 24-11-2001 petition was directed to be advertised in accordance with Rule 24 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and notices were issued to the respondents. By the same ord...
Sambhal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1533
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 has been preferred by Sambhal Singh and his three sons namely, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh against the Judgment and Order dated 17-12-2002, passed by Mr. O.P. Tripathi, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-IV), Deoria, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2000 convicting and sentencing them to death for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 arises out of the reference made by the learned trial Judge, to this Court under Section 366(1), Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence of Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh.It is pertinent to mention that along with the four appellants, two others namely, Ram Nath and Ram Pyare Mall were also tried, but the learned trial Judge vide the impugned Judgment acquitted them and the State of U.P. has not preferred any appeal under Section 378(1), Cr.P.C. aga...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC794
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Pratap Singh for petitioner, and Sri Nripendra Misra for respondents-Corporation.2. Late Satai was employed as 'Petrol Man', in Electricity Distribution Division-II, Allahabad. His wife Smt. Satina Devi had no issue. It is alleged, that in the year 1978, with the consent of Satina Devi, he sought permission of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Allahabad for second marriage, which was given to him on 24.10.1978, with the condition that as soon as a child is born, his relation with the second wife shall cease. With this permission he married one Kaushalya Devi. Petitioner was born to Kaushalya Devi on 30.12.1980. Sri Satai died in harness on 19.11.2000. It is alleged that there was a settlement between Smt. Satina Devi and Kaushalya Devi on 1.7.2002, under which Smt. Satina Devi was made entitled to and is receiving the retiral dues, and that petitioner shall be entitled to compassi...
R.P.N. Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC158
A.K. Yog and V.N. Singh, JJ.1. Petitioner, being aggrieved against the order of suspension dated 23.8.2003, (Annexure-3 to the petition), had filed Writ Petition No. 39331 of 2003, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner against this very suspension order before U.P. Public Service Tribunal; copy of the said judgment and order dated 4.9.2003, in Writ Petition No. 39331 of 2003, R.P.N. Tewari v. State of U.P. and Ors., is annexed as Annexure-5 to the petition.2. After dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 797 of 2003, before State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. It appears that he also filed application for interim relief which has been rejected by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 22.9.2003 on the ground that it has no power to grant interim relief in suspension matter and hence, rejected application for interim order (Annexure-6 to the petition).3. Interim relief application having been rejected by th...
Mohd. Sabir Ali Vs. Smt. Hameeda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC289
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2000 challenges an award made by the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Section 3(3) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The respondent-wife Smt. Hameeda moved the Magistrate with a petition under Section 3(2) of the Act to award a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- as a reasonable and fair provision of maintenance/Mehar or dower, etc. The petition was contested by the revisionist-husband Mohd. Sabir, He, however, admitted the fact about having made the divorce of Smt. Hameeda. The claims of award had been made by the respondent in several heads, amounting to total claim of Rs. 1,37,000/-, but the revisionist-husband had denied his liability for refund/payment of all those claims. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of both...
Shri Kishun Khetan (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Vth Additional District Judg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC167
S.U. Khan, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Chatur Bhuj Agarwal (C.B. Agarwal in short) filed a release application giving rise to the instant writ petition being P.A. Case No. 19 of 1990 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Azamgarh, Sri Kishun Khetan petitioner (since deceased and survived by L.Rs.) who was the tenant was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the release application. Vijai Krishan Agarwal (V.K. Agarwal in short) and Gopal Krishan Agarwal (G.K. Agarwal in short) nephews of C.B. Agarwal and co-landlords were impleaded as proforma opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. V.K. Agarwal and G.K. Agarwal are sons of late Ghanshyam Agarwal (G.S. Agarwal in short) real brother of Sri C.B. Agarwal. Release application was allowed on 24.7.1991 and appeal against the same filed by the tenant being P.A. Appeal No. 141 of 1991 was also dismissed by Vth Additi...
Ratan Lal Poddar Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC779
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition shows the high handedness of respondent No. 3 who got the house in dispute allotted in his favour surreptitiously and ejected the landlord who was residing in the house. This is simply house grabbing. The landlord had obtained possession of the house from the previous tenant after a long drawn litigation on the ground of bona fide need. The revisional court also refused to provide remedy against the aforesaid illegal and unjust action and dismissed the revision as barred by time. Normally in such circumstances, if the Court is of the opinion that delay condonation application in revision was wrongly rejected, the matter is sent back to the revisional court for decision of revision on merit. However, in the instant case, I find the action of Rent Control and Eviction Officer (in short R.C. and E.O.) to be not only illegal and without jurisdiction but amounting to mockery of law, hence instead of remanding the matter to lower revisional court, in this w...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC438; (2004)1UPLBEC127
A.K. Yog and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. The claimant-respondent of this writ-petition Naubat Singh was appointed on 31.5.1961 as Panchayat Mantri : he became Panchayat Sewak and thereafter Village Panchayat Officer : which was declared Government Service cadre with effect from 1.10.1971., vide Government order dated 28.9.1971 : on completion of 10 years continuous service claimant-respondent was given Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.1982 ; under para 10 of the Government order dated 3.6.1989 he became entitled to and was granted promotional pay scale on completion of 6 years satisfactory service : the claimant-respondent received promotional pay scale with effect from 1.7.1988 : he continued to work without objection at any point of time with regard to grant of selection grade and promotional pay scale, he retired on 30.12.1996 on attaining age of superannuation at the age of 58 years ; on retirement his usual pensionary benefits were not released : he was. however, given some pensionary be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »