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.
Guru Dutt Vs. Anuj Khatri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1141
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14.8.2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad in Regular Suit No. 320 of 2003, Guru Dutt v. Anuj Khatri and Anr., by which the learned trial court has issued notice against the opposite parties on application for ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant opposite party No. 2 is a registered Cooperative Housing Society and the object of the society is to acquire land and establish colony for its members known as Sindhu Nagar Yojana. The plot in suit was allotted to Smt. Lajwanti Devi on 10.11.1967 by the opposite party No. 2, There was a condition in the deed of transfer that the allottee Smt. Lajwanti Devi was to raise the construction over the plot within 24 months. Smt. Lajwanti Devi failed to raise construction. The Society passed resolution to forfeit the plot No. A-22 and informe...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Deep Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC858; (2004)IILLJ727All; (2004)1UPLBEC816
R. K. Agrawal, J.1. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4294 of 1993 by which he has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of services of the writ petitioners. The learned Judge further directed the opposite parties to reinstate the writ petitioners in service and consider the case of their regularisation. However, they shall not be entitled for back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows :According to the writ petitioners, who are five in number, they were employed as mate on 1st October, 1989 in the Public Works Department, Allahabad. They were initially employed in Departmental Construction Unit, Public Works Department, Allahabad and were placed on temporary muster roll from 10.10.1989 to April, 1991. They were subse...
Shailendra Kumar Ojha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC415
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2) and the preceding Government Order dated 27th September, 2003 (Annexure-3), providing for appointment of D.G.C. (Criminal) and Additional Government Advocate in District Ballia.2. Facts and circumstances, giving rise to this case are that petitioners No. 1 to 4 were appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), vide order dated 27th July, 1992 and petitioner No. 5 as Additional Government Advocate vide order dated 3rd August, 1992 in District Ballia (Annexures-4 and 5), for a period of one year, i.e., upto 31st July, 1993. Their appointment had been renewed from time to time. Last renewal was made on 30th October, 2000 for a period of three years, i.e., upto 29th October, 2003 by the State Government. Instead of renewing the cases of the petitioners, an advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2) has been issued in pursuance of the ...
Nafe Alias Ashutosh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3571
ORDERK.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA on admission of the revision. The Criminal Revision is being decided finally at the admission stage.2. Instant revision has been preferred by Nafe alias Ashutosh son of Mahendra Singh, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, against order dated 23-8-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Baghpat, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, State v. Shailendra, pending under Section 376, 506, IPC police station Baraut, District Baghpat, by which the application 14C moved by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr. P.C. was allowed, and the revisionist has been summoned through warrant to appear in the Court and face trial in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, under Sections 376, 506, IPC.3. Prosecution case is that FIR was lodged by Smt. Rajo, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, which was registered under Sections 376, 506, IPC at police station Baraut, Dis...
Ram Bahori and anr. Vs. Gaon Sabha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2112
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.2. Petitioners aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Revisional Authority under the provisions of Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are, in short, that on receipt of a notice under Rule 115C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1950, the petitioners filed their objections and have also instituted a suit under Section 229B of the aforesaid Act before the appropriate Court, copy of plaint of the suit is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Tehsildar concerned declared the petitioners to be ...
Ganga Ram Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC463
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001.2. The dispute relates to an accommodation situated in Mohalla Budhi Mata, Kasba Chandausi, District Moradabad, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as the 'disputed accommodation'.3. From the averments made in the writ petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction, arrears of rent, and damages, etc., in respect of the disputed accommodation. The said suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2001.4. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the learned ...
Smt. Leela Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC247; 2004(1)AWC529
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the disputed land under the Land Acquisition Act with interest and solatium.3. It is alleged in para 2 of the writ petition, that the petitioner is the owner of plot Nos. 7, 8 and 55 in village Harthana, District Moradabad. This land was among the land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.9.1991 and Notification under Section 6 on 10.9.1992. Possession of the plot was taken by respondent No. 3, Moradabad Development Authority on 28.10.1994, which is also admitted in para 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Copy of the possession certificate is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. True copy of the award dated 6.8.1997 is Annexure-2 to the writ ...
Brahma Deo Tiwari Vs. Alok Tandon, District Magistrate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC543; 2004CriLJ2411; (2004)1UPLBEC444
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been filed with the allegation that the order of this Court dated 10.12.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 30944 of 1997, has not been honoured and the opposite parties have deliberately and wilfully violated it.3. The applicant, claims to have been selected for the post of 'Assistant Wasil Waqi Nawis' in Collectorate at Allahabad in 1987. The petitioner claimed that though he was appointed on the post of Collection Peon in 1994, he was discharging the work of a typist. As he was not given appointment on the post of 'Waqi Nawis' he filed Writ Petition No. 37257 of 1993, this was disposed off with a direction for deciding representation of the petitioner. By an order dated 11.7.1997, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the then Collector, holding that there was no order of Board of Revenue. As according to the applicant, the order was ...
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Iiird Additional Munsif and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC509; (2004)1UPLBEC806
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against an ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.5.1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Suit No. 77 of 1986.3. Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that the contesting respondent No. 2 instituted an Injunction Suit No. 77 of 1986 restraining the petitioner from realising market-fee on kattha. The case set up in the plaint was that kattha and katechu are not agricultural products and since they were manufactured items, no market fee could be realised from it. It appears that an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on the date of institution of the suit itself i.e., on 6.2.1986. After filing of the written statement issues were struck. The petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction alleging that the market fee payable by the plaintiff-respondent was for more than Rs. one crore in a year and the suit had been valued only at Rs. 10,000, therefore, the suit was not cognizable be...
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC559; (2004)1UPLBEC995
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This Special Appeal has been filed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge dated 23.10.2003.3. The dispute is regarding entitlement to form the Committee of Management of Sri Mohan Singh Madhyamik Vidya Mandir, Girhiyar, Etah. The Committee, of which Rajendra Singh is the Manager, claims to have been elected on 24.6.1997. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the institution, which has been approved under Section 16A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, states :^^lnL;ksa dk dk;Zdky insu lnL;ksals fHkUu lfefr ds lnL;ksa dh dk;Zdky muds pqus tkus ds fnukad ls pkj lky dkgksxk A ubZ izcU/k lfefr dk pquko mlds dk;Zdky lekfIr ds ,d ekg ds vUnj gh lEiUudjk fy;k tk;xk ubZ lfefr ,d ekg ds vUnj dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj ysxh A fdUrqfo'ks'k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa e.Myh; f'k{kk mi&funs;'kd dks mDr vof/k esavko';drkuqlkj o`f) djus dk vf/kdkj gksxk A**4. Thus, under the Scheme of Administration, the te...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »