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.
R.K. Kulshrestha Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC323; [2004(102)FLR514]; (2004)1UPLBEC919
ORDERM. Katju and U. Pandey, JJ.1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks.2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 returnable at an early date.3. The important question of law involved in this petition is whether the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. has power to suspend or order any inquiry against the President of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (also known as the District Forum).4. We are prima facie of the opinion that the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no such powers, and hence, prima facie the impugned orders dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and 10.9.2003 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) are illegal.5. Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that 'every appointment under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government.'6. Section 10(1) refers to the District Forum, and hence appointment of the President of the District ...
Vijai Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All172; 2004(1)AWC531
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners claim to be sons of late Nand Lal Vaishya. It is alleged that there were electricity dues against Nand Lal Vaishya, who died on 11.5.2001. The impugned recovery has been challenged on the ground that the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay the dues of late Nand Lal Vaishya.3. It is true that a man cannot be made liable to pay the dues of his father. However, if the father dies then the dues can be recovered from his estate, and if any part of the estate is inherited by the son then obviously the dues can be recovered from that part of the property of the father, which has been inherited by the son. Hence, this petition is disposed off with the direction that the impugned dues can be recovered from the estate of late Nand Lal Vaishya, and if any part of his property was inherited by the petitioners then it can be recovered from those properties....
Panna Lal Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC544
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the age of superannuation of the petitioners to be 60 years and permit them to continue in service upto 30th June, 2004. They also seek quashing of the second proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 (a) of Part II, Volume II of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Fundamental Rules'), as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Rules'), vide notification dated 27th June, 2002, issued by the State Government.2. While Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25062 of 2002, had been filed by two petitioners namely, Panna Lal Singh and Bacchan Lal Yadav, subsequently, Panna Lal Singh withdrew from the petition and, therefore, it has been pressed on behalf of Bacchan Lal Yadav only.3. Since both the writ petitions raise common question of law, they have been heard together and are being...
Mukhtar Ahsan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC428; (2004)1UPLBEC811
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.1.1996 Annexure-14 to the writ petition by which the petitioner after an enquiry has been reverted from the post of Assistant Inspector General (Registration) to the post of Registrar.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a Class II officer in the employment of the State Government. He joined the service as Sub-Registrar from 13.2.1970 on probation and he was confirmed on 13.2.1972. He as promoted as Assistant Inspector General (Registration) on 3.8.1991 and was posted at Bulandshahr. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the respondents 3 and 4 had some grudge against the petitioner and hence a preliminary enquiry was conducted in connection with the letter dated 16.3.1994 written by the Inspector General (Registration) to the petitioner vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By this letter the petitioner was asked to explain why the record of the order dated 18...
Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Prassidh Narayan Dubey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC688
Janardan Sahai, J.1. A suit for rent and ejectment was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 against Tejashwi Investment Company Ltd. alleging that the company was its tenant. The suit was decreed ex parte on 8.8.1986. The decree was put into execution. The applicant Ram Adhar Singh resisted delivery of possession. Objections under Order XXI, Rule 97. C.P.C. were filed by the applicant alleging that he was in possession in his own right being the tenant since 1.2.1984 and that the decree could not be executed against him. The trial court by its order Impugned dated 3.11.2003 dismissed the objections holding that the tenancy agreement relied upon by the applicant was not proved and that he was not a tenant but was set up by his brother who was a Director in the company which was the tenant against which the decree was passed.2. I have heard Sri P.N. Saxena counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Srivastava counsel for the respondents.3. It is submitted by Sri Saxena that the findings reco...
Sadanand Singh Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1362
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the verdict given by the summary court-martial holding the petitioner guilty as also for quashing the appellate order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the verdict of the summary court martial has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the opposite parties commanding them to reinstate him to the post held by him at the time of his dismissal with consequential benefits of service including pay and allowances.2. The petitioner having been enrolled in the Indian Army in medical corpse was working on the post of Naik at the relevant time and was posted as operation room assistant at the A.D.M. Battalion A.M.C. Centre and School, Cantonment, Lucknow. It is said that he impersonating himself as Naik Om Prakash of 325 Lt. A.D. Regiment and Naik Sadanand Roy of Military Hospital, Belgam sponsored ...
Arun Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC597; 2005(2)AWC1574
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Premises No. 108/186, Sisamau Bazar, Kanpur, the details where of are given in the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1984 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 92 of 1979 referred to herein-after. The said Shop has herein-after been referred to as the 'disputed shop'.3. From a perusal of the allegations made in the Writ Petition and Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein filed a Suit for ejectment etc., in respect of the disputed shop against the Late Jag Mohan, grandfather of the petitioners herein on the grounds of default in payment of rent and ...
Cit Vs. Naveen Silk Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN85(All)
M. Katju, J.This is an ITR under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Income Tax Officer to make two separate assessments for the two periods ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 187(2) were not applicable to the facts of the instant case2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. During that financial year one of the partners Chandra Bhushan Misra died on 12-1-1975 and the question involved in this reference is whether there should be two assessments or a single assessment in the relevant year. Ordinarily when a partner dies the partnership stands automatically dissolved in view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act and section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, if the partnership deed menti...
Puran Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC853
ORDERS. K. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 4.7.1997 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) by which after setting aside the orders of three courts below mutation of the name of the opposite been allowed.3. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that Dulla happens to be recorded tenant of the land. On his death name of Babu Lal was recorded by the Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of P.A. 11. An application for mutation under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act was filed by Mst. Kalli claiming herself to be widow of the deceased. Another objection was filed by Babu Lal through Ram Rati, her mother, claiming himself to be the son of the deceased Dulla as Ram Rati was married to Dulla. After the evidence was led the Tehsildar recorded a finding that Ram Rati was not married to Dulla but was living with him and thus she can be said at the most to be concubine and, therefore, in view of the admitted po...
Kripa Shanker Singh and anr. Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3103
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. This appeal is directed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the instance of the insured persons against the order of the Tribunal dated 20th December, 1977 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, decreeing respondent 1st set's claim in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1 of 1973.2. It arises out of a Motor Accident Claim Case, under the provision of old Motor Vehicles Act. The appellants are the co-owners of the vehicle which was involved in the case. The grievance of the present appellants is that the claims Tribunal has committed illegality in deciding the issue No. 6 by holding that it is open to the claimants to recover the amount from the owners of the bus and owner of the bus may claim indemnity from the Insurance Company. Since only short grievance is involved, therefore, it is not necessary to give the fact of the case in detail.3. Issue No. 6 reads as follows :'Whether the respondents or the respondent, if any, is liable to pay co...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »