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.
Laxman Singh Rawat Vs. Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC436
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord/respondent under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The main point argued and required to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether a shop may be released for converting the same into open piece of land by demolition, in order to use the open land as Rasta for ingress and outgress to another property of the landlord (petrol pump in the instant writ petition) for more beneficial enjoyment of the latter property. Landlord filed a release application against tenant/petitioner being U. B. Case No. 13 of 1993 with the allegation that his petrol pump is adjacent to the shop in dispute. Landlord was running a petrol pump and for ingress and outgress to and from the said petrol pump, there was a very narrow path, hence the vehicles coming there for taking petrol faced grate difficulty. The landlord further pleaded that he required the shop in dispute in order to dem...
Sri Kant Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1037
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. These two writ petitions relate to the dispute over the post of Principal (ad hoc) in Krishak Intermediate College, Maholi, Sitapur between Sri Kant Mishra and Diwakar Prasad Mishra, the two lecturers in the same college.2. The first Writ Petition No. 57 (S/S) of 1999 has been filed by Shri Sri Kant Mishra for quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.1998 as contained in Annexure-1 to that writ petition and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect, to the impugned order dated 15.12.1998 and not to disturb the petitioner working as Principal of the institution and to pay the salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal, regularly.3. By the impugned order dated 15.12.1998 the Joint Director of Education in compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3119 (S/S) of 1998, has decided the claim of the petitioner and Shri Diwakar Prasad Mishra opposite party No. 6 by holding that the petitioner Sri Kant Mi...
Ram Kishore Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC570
R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri G.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In this petition prayer has been made for quashing the order/notice dated 19.8.2000 issued by the respondent No. 1 indicating that after completing age of 58 years taking the date of birth entered into service book the petitioner was to retire on 18.1.2001 from service.3. The petitioner has challenged the said notice in the present writ petition by saying that petitioner was appointed as a line Collie in the Electricity Department in the office of Sub-Division Officer, Karvi, District Banda in the year 1967 and at the time of entering into service his date of birth 18.1.1943 was entered into service book and later on 2.4.1968 the petitioner also indicated that his date of birth is 18.1.1943. Since the petitioner is not High School pass and he could not understand the importance of date of birth entered into service book, therefore, at his request a le...
Asgar Ali Vs. Razzaq HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC505
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenants writ petition. Landlords/respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant/petitioner after terminating his tenancy through notice under Section 106, T.P. Act on the ground that Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was not applicable, as the building had been constructed less than 10 years before filing of the suit, i.e., in the year 1991. Suit was filed in the year 1997 being S.C.C. Suit No. 212 of 1997. The tenant pleaded that the building was quite old, that the landlord had purchased the same in the year 1987 and that only minor repair was carried out in 1991, hence the building could not be said to be newly constructed in the year 1991. The landlord also pleaded that an agreement was entered into in between the parties which was recorded in writing on 8.4.1991. The copy of the said agreement is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In the agreement it was stated that the building had newly been constructed. In the plaint it was furt...
Dr. Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR207(All)
M. Katju J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated October 13, 2003, which asks the petitioner to attend the office of the Deputy Director, Income-tax, Agra, and produce certain books of account of his business and some other material. In our opinion this notice does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.3. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and it will not be exercised unless the petitioner shows not only violation of law but also that there was some prejudice against him. Merely by showing violation of law he will not succeed.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 131(1A) the officer who issued the notice must show the reason why he has issued the notice, and no such reason has been mentioned in the impugned notice. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under article 226 of the Constitution in this case, since, in our opinion, th...
Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC426
ORDERS.U. Khan, J. 1. In this writ petition arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard and judgment was reserved on 19.8.2003. On that date learned counsel for the respondent was not present as is evident from the order-sheet of that date.2. The main point involved in this case is whether petitioner can be treated to be landlord of the building in dispute and entitled to file release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 even though he is not the owner. Prescribed authority decided the question in favour of the petitioner.3. Petitioner had filed release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respondent No. 2 which was registered as R. C. Case No. 58 of 1978. Prescribed authority/II-Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur allowed the release application on 25.8.1981 holding that petitioner was landlord and his need was bona fide and balance of comparative hardship also lay in his favour. Respondent No. 2/tenant filed an appeal under Section...
Raja Ram (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Xth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC836
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlords' writ petition. Suit filed by landlord petitioner against tenant respondent No. 3 on the ground of default was decreed by the trial court however the revisional court allowed the revision, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court (J.S.C.C.) and dismissed the suit of the landlord. The only question involved in this writ petition is whether tenant was liable to ejectment on the ground of default or not. Petitioner landlord (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) filed S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 1989 before J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar against tenant respondent No. 3. According to the plaint allegation rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month apart from taxes, that defendant tenant was defaulter with effect from 1.12.1987, that till 30.11.1988 amount of 12 month's rent amounting to Rs. 2,400 alongwith water tax with effect from 1.7.1978 was due against the tenant. In the notice and the plaint varying rates of water tax were mentioned, i.e....
Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College Vs. V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC843
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. All these four writ petitions relate to the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows :Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45079 of 2000 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur, through its Joint Secretary (working as Secretary), Ramji Ral, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur respectively, to produce the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor contained in the communication of the Registrar of the Purvanchal University dated 9th September, 2000 filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and on production thereof the same be quashed. Vide order dated 9th September, 2...
Smt. Khursheeda Begum and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC851
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenants' writ petition. Suit of the landlord respondent No. 3 filed against tenants has been decreed by both the courts below inter alia on the ground of default. The main question involved in this writ petition is regarding validity of deposit made by tenant under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. Tenants instituted Misc. Case No, 137 of 1993 under Section 30 of the Act in which rent from January. 1987 to December, 1993 was deposited on 9.4.1993. Thereafter on 25.1.1994 rent for the entire year of 1994 was deposited and on 5.1.1995 rent of 1995 from January to December was deposited. Thereafter the rent from January, 1996 to December 1996 was deposited on 24.2.1996 in the eviction suit giving rise to the instant writ petition instituted before J.S.C.C., Varanasi (Suit No. 113 of 1993). The tenant had appeared before J.S.C.C. on 2.7.1994. The deposit of rent on 5.1.1995 from January, 1995 to December, 1995 under Section 30 after appearing in the sui...
Om Prakash Vs. Sunil Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC838
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1992 on the ground of bona fide need. The property in dispute is a shop in tenancy occupation of the petitioner. The property in dispute was purchased by landlords respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the year 1988. The petitioner is son of the original tenant Dharm Prakash (since deceased and survived by petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 8) who was the tenant of the said property since before its purchase and carrying on the business in the name of Syama Crokery's.2. It was further alleged in the release application that father of the landlords had an accommodation measuring 18' x 150' in which father of the landlords Moti Lal was carrying on business of retail and whole sale of general merchandise and of some agencies by name of Cash and Company and was also using the back portion of the same as godown. The need set up ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »