Allahabad Court May 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.
Udai Pratap Singh Vs. Smt. Mridula Raghuvanshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3325
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 4.12.1996 passed in Regular Misc. Case No. 110/70/94, Km. Luxmi alias Meethu v. Estate, connected with Regular Misc. Case No. 251/70/95, Smt. Mridula Raghuvanshi v. Estate of minor Km. Luxmi by which the learned District Judge, Bahraich, has appointed Smt. Mridula Raghuvanshi as guardian of person and property of the minor Km. Luxmi and has rejected the application of Udai Pratap Singh moved on behalf of minor daughter Km. Luxmi for grant of succession certificate in respect of the securities left by her mother late Smt. Mamta Singh.2. The brief facts of the dispute between the parties is that Udai Pratap Singh was married with late Smt. Mamta Singh in the year 1988 and Km. Luxmi was born out of their wedlock. Smt. Mridula Raghuvanshi is the real sister of Smt. Mamta Singh and the maternal aunt of Km. Luxmi. Late Smt. Mamta Singh was a teacher in Diksha Vidyalaya. Chhawni Bazar. Bahraich...
Syed Mahfooz HussaIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All299
ORDER1. This judgment will govern all similar petitions listed before us today.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, which was inserted by the Indian Stamp (U.P. Second Amendment) Act, 2001 (U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001) copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition.4. The facts of this case are that by a sale deed dated 1-8-2001 Annexure-2 to the writ petition one Deepak Kumar transferred the land in question to the petitioner. The Sub-Registrar, Karchhana, District Allahabad made a reference to the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition stating that the Stamp duty on the document was Rs. 1,17,900/- but the petitioner had paid only Rs. 23,400/-hence the deficiency in the stamp duty was Rs. 94,500/-. The petitioner filed an objection dated 8-5-2002 before the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-4 to the writ pe...
Ehtesham Ullah Khan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1602
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 1893 of 1994 rejecting petitioner's application for correcting the date of birth.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner joined the service of the respondents as Tailor 'D' on 20.6.1963 and his date of birth was recorded in the Service Book as 17.5.1934. Subsequently, he filed an application in 1982 to correct his date of birth as 17.2.1943 which was not accepted. Thus, he filed O.A. No. 729 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 15.2.1993 directing the respondents to hold an enquiry, giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and to examine the issue afresh. An enquiry was held and the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4.3.1994. Petitioner again challenged t...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Through Its General Manager Vs. Spec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2042
R.B. Misra, J.1. This case was heard on 15.9.1999 by this Court and after hearing the Court has been pleased to pass the following orders:'Learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Amit holding brief of Sri Deo Raj, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 prays for and is granted four weeks for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List this case for admission in the week commencing 1.11.1999.'Petitioner is directed to serve the respondent No. 5 personally as also by registered post A.D.Operation of the impugned order dated 21.7.1999 at Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition will remain stayed provided the petitioner, as claimed, has already deposited the amount granted, as claim, by the respondent No. 2, as in respect of said deposit no dispute has been raised by the petitioner. If the said amount has not been deposited, the present interim order ...
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2749
Janardan Sahai, J. 1. The land in dispute is situate in several villages. Gokul Pandey was its tenant. He is said to have executed a registered sale deed dated 6.8.1973 in favour of Gauri Shankar Mishra on the basis of which the name of Gauri Shanker Mishra was mutated. Gauri Shanker died on 16.6.1981. Meera Devi, the 4th respondent claims that she is his widow. Badri Prasad, the 5th respondent claims that Gauri Shankar had executed in his favour a sale deed for half share in the land of village Bhabhnauli Kala. He also relies upon a sale deed by Meera Devi in respect of the land of village Sidhauna. After the death of Gauri Shankar, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.11.1981 directed that the name of Gokul Pandey be recorded over chak No. 47 in place of Gaurl Shankar as successor. Meera Devi then applied for setting aside the order dated 4.11.1981. It appears that Gokul Pandey died on 15.2.1988. The petitioner Savitri Devi claims that a registered Will was executed in her favo...
Ram Lalit Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2761
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Shri Shankatha Ral learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 8.4.2002, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Basti.3. Facts of the case briefly stated are : Ram Bachan father of the petitioner died on 10.5.2001. Petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name in place of Ram Bachan, deceased on the basis of registered Will dated 3.3.2000. Petitioner filed an application before Assistant Consolidation Officer for mutation of his name in place of deceased father. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on 20.6.2001 on the basis of compromise mutating the name of petitioner on the basis of Will on Chak Nos. 184 and 213. The respondent No. 3 claiming wife of Ram Bhawan another son of Ram Bachan filed ...
Ram Prakash Pandey and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2753
Ashok Bhushan, J 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. N. Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4th September, 2002, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur.4. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak No. 191 to the petitioners. The petitioners were proposed three chaks. First chak consisting of plot Nos. 339 and 340 which contains plot No. 340/1 also at their original holding, second Chak at plot No. 228, etc. and third chak on their original holding at plot No. 53M. The contesting respondent was proposed chak No. 69 at two places. First Chak at plot No. 340 consisting of his original holding and second chak at p...
Bhanu Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2722
Janardan Sahai, J.1. Mahadeo Singh and Kalika Singh were brothers. The petitioners Bhanu Pratap Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Singh and Nirvesh Kumar Singh in Writ Petition No. 31102 of 2000 are descendants of Mahadeo Singh. The contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Shiv Charan Singh and Moti Lal Singh are sons of Kalika Singh. The respondent No. 4 Smt. Saraswati Devi is the widow of Mahadeo Singh. The case of Bhanu Pratap Singh and others is that chak No. 64 was partitioned for 1/3rd share each of Mahadeo Singh, Kalika Singh and Smt. Saraswati Devi by order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.5.1970 in Case No. 6698 but the said order was not given effect to and it was only on a reference prepared on the application of Mahadeo Singh that an order dated 8.1.1973 in Case No. 1639 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad, giving effect to the order dated 25.5.1970, aforesaid. Shiv Charan Singh and Moti Lal Singh filed revision against the order dated 8.1.1973 after about 19 years against...
Virendra Pal Singh Rana Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1444
M. Katju, J. 1. The judgment will govern all similar petitions listed today before us.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.2.2003 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and consequential order dated 4.3.2003 Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which his appointment as D.G.C. (Criminal) in District Court, Pilibhit has been terminated. The petitioner has also challenged the selection/appointment on the post of D.G.C. (Crl.) vide order dated 2.3.2003 Annexure-16 to the writ petition.3. Heard Counsel for the parties.4. It is alleged 'in Paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as panel lawyer on 1.7.1976 in District Pilibhit and he worked on that post till 1977 after which he worked as A.D.G.C., till July, 1977. Thereafter he worked as D.G.C. from December, 1979 till October, 1982 whereafter he was promoted as full fledged D.G.C. vide order dated 30.11.1984, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is alleged in Paragraph 4 of the writ petit...
Abdul Hamid Khan (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Khan (D.) Throug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2936
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This is the second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1969 passed by Sri C. L. Anand, Civil Judge, Bijnor in Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1968. The facts of the case are very simple and the following pedigree will help in considering the facts : Hussain Bux __________________________________|________________________________ | | Mohd. Bux Khan (son) Khuda Bux Khan | | Abdul Gani (son) | ______|__________________________________ | | | | | | Jalilur Abdul Abdul Ghafoorulnisa Abdulla Khan (son) Rehman Wahid Hamid (Daughter) | Khan (son) (son) (son) Nasir Hussain (son)2. The dispute is regarding ahata situated in plot No. 706 of the town Sahaspur, Pargana Seohara, district Bijnor. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents 1 to 4 from interfering in his possession over the disputed ahata. Later on he converted the relief and claimed recovery of possession. His case is that this ahata was acquired by Mohd. Bux ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »