Allahabad Court November 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.
Jangi Singh and anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh Chauhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All167
Prakash Krishan J.1. This is defendant's appeal. Haying lost from both the Courts below the present appeal has been preferred at the instance defendant of original suit No. 69 of 1972 filed for cancellation of a Will dated 9th June, 1970 executed by Shri Thakur Singh son of Beni Singh. To appreciate the facts of the case it is necessary to give a small pedigree as follows:-- Beni Singh | Thakur Singh _________________________________|__________________________ | | Rajni (wife) Chandrawati (wife) | (Def. 2-Appellant) | | | Jangi Singh | (Def. 1-Apellant) ____|__________________________________ | Lal Singh (deceased) | = Tikam Kaur (P.2) Raghuveer Singh | (P. 1) _____|__________________________________________________ | | Kanchan Singh Ratan Singh (P. 3) (P. 4)2. From the above pedigree it is clear that Thakur Singh the father of the present appellant No. 1 had two wives one Smt. Rajni and second Smt. Chandrawati. Two sons Lal Singh and Raghubeer Singh were born from the wedlock of Thaku...
JagnaraIn and ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All215
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is defendants' appeal. It arises out of Original suit No. 418 of 1970 filed for mandatory injunction in respect of a piece of land marked as E. F. G. O. in the map attached to the Plaint.2. The Plaintiff respondents filed a Suit for demolition and injunction on the allegation that Plot No. 605 belongs to plaintiffs' father and Uncle etc. The area one Bigha five Biswas of the said plot belong to the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs and his collaterals are in occupation of the said plot. The said plot is also recorded in the revenue record in the name of the plaintiffs. A lease of one biswa area was granted on 2-1-1951 to Sri Kedar Lal (Originally the defendants who died during the pendency of the suit) Sri Kedar Lal built a house over it. The defendant Kedar Lal started making construction over a piece of land towards east which was not leased out to him in June 1970 and failed to stop the work in spite of protest from the plaintiffs. Consequently the suit f...
Mohan Singh S/O Sardar Singh Thakur Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2684; [2003(96)FLR475]
ORDERK.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.2. The revision is being decided at the admission stage.3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred by accused Mohan Singh against order dated 24-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad in which the revisionist has been summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003 under Sections 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C., 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. police station Bahjoi district Moradabad.4. In the impugned order dated 24-9-2003, it has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused Dinesh and Suresh appeared in the Court. Statement of PW 1 Mahendra resident of village Fatehpur, police station Bahjoi district Moradabad was recorded who stated that revisionist Mohan armed with pharsa caused injuries to his son Rajnesh at about 9.00 p.m. in the month of Sept. It w...
ishwar Dayal Goyal Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC605
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interlia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Saharanpur in so far as it imposed the cost of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner while allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 filed by the petitioner.2. From the perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexure thereto, it appears that the Petitioner alongwith Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 filed a suit against the Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 (Respondents Ist set) for eviction, arrears of rent and damages etc., in respect of the shop situated in Mohalla Arhat Bazar, Kasba Gangoh, Pargana Gangoh, District Saharanpur. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as the 'disputed shop'.3. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 50 of 1995.4. It further appears that...
Devendra Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC444
R.P. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhari, learned senior counsel appearing, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Nagcshwar Prasad Pandey, learned standing counsel.2. The father of the petitioners Yadunath Singh died on 22.9.1971. Separate notices under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were issued to the petitioners. Objections were filed on behalf of the petitioners. The prescribed authority by order dated 31.10.1974 declared an area of 27.89 acres and 24.81 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The prescribed authority has recorded a finding that the land sold through sale deeds after 24th January. 1971, should not be excluded from holdings of the petitioners. After coming into force of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976. fresh notices were issued to the petitioners and prescribed authority by order dated 29.5.1976 held 55.20 acres and 43.76 acres respectively in terms of irrigated land as surplus wit...
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Brahmpal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC620
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-employer, aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 29th September, 1986 in Adjudication Case No. 326 of 1985 and also the order dated 2nd December, 1987, whereby the application of the employer for setting-aside ex-parte award was rejected, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. On receipt of the reference the Labour Court issued notices to the employer and the employee and the parties have exchanged their pleadings. The workman has set up the case, that he has worked for the whole crushing seasons 1979-80 and 1980-81 and that arbitrarily his services were terminated on 4th December, 1982, whereas several junior workmen employed by the employer are still working. It is also alleged that the employers do not maintain any record nor do they record attendance of the workmen, pay slips and leave card etc. They also keep on the record the names of such workmen who even have never worked in their establishm...
Mohammad Mukhtar Ahmad Raza Vs. Gulam Abdul Qadir Alvi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All226; 2004(1)AWC450
Janardan Sahai, J.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Gulam Abdul Qadir Alvi against the petitioner for injunction and declaration as Sajjada Nashin of Khankah Faizul Rasool. The plaintiff's case is that after the previous Sajjada Nashin died there was an election by the executive committee in which the plaintiff respondent was elected as Sajjada Nashin. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint to challenge the Will said to have been executed by the alleged previous Sajjada Nashin on 24.12.1991 in favour of the defendant petitioner. By order dated 5.4.2003, the amendment application has been allowed by the trial court. A revision against that order filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.8.2003.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. Firstly, the amendment sought, changes the nature of the suit and secondly, it is time barred as the plaintiff had knowledge about the will. The contentions may be dealt with in the o...
Gyan Chand Gupta Vs. Chief General Manager, S.B.i. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC402; (2004)IILLJ548All
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.1985 passed by the Chief General Manager/ Disciplinary Action Cell. State Bank of India, New Delhi copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. By that order the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the State Bank of India.3. The petitioner was Field Officer, Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the service of the State Bank. He was issued charge-sheet dated 16.5.1983 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition in which several allegations have been made of embezzlements arid other financial irregularities. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner has been found guilty. The full details have been given in the impugned order dated 16.12.1985 Anncxure-5 to the petition. A perusal of the said order shows that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and after detailed discussion of the evidence and material on record he has been found guilt...
Vipul Agarwal Vs. Atul Kanodia and Co. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All205; 2004(2)ARBLR335(All); 2004(1)AWC727; [2004]53SCL189(All)
Janardan Sahai, J.1. An award was made against the petitioner by the Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 17.11.1997. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Act. The application was dismissed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by order dated 16.1.2003. The appeal against the order filed was dismissed on 7.3.2003. An application for special leave to appeal to the Apex Court filed by the petitioner has been allowed and the civil appeal is now pending before the Apex Court.2. Under Section 36 of the Act an arbitral award is executable as a decree. But it can be enforced only after the time for filing an application under Section 34 has expired and no application is made or such application having been made has been rejected. An application for executing the award has been filed by the respondent before the District Judge. The petitioner objected to the execution on the gro...
Brijraj Kishore Pandey Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC448
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1999, passed by respondent No. 2 by which the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled under Section 17(3)(B) of the Indian Arms Act and the judgment and order dated 10.1.2000, passed by respondent No. 1 in appeal.3. The facts as emerge from the records are that the petitioner was attacked in 1982 by some miscreants due to enmity in the village and an F.I.R. was lodged by him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307 and 323, I.P.C., P.S. Kunda, District Pratapgarh, in said criminal case main accused was convicted for 7 years' R.I. The convict in the aforesaid case came out after serving out the sentence. The petitioner apprehended danger to his life by the aforesaid convict and as well as enmity with some other persons of the village. In the meantime one Rajesh Singh alias Prabhakar Singh, who was also resident of village Sahapur w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »