Allahabad Court July 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.
Uma Shanker Vs. Xth Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2895
ORDERS.U. Khan, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.1990, passed by XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 137 of 1989, through which the revision of Sohan Lal respondent No. 2/landlord was allowed and the order dated 31.1.1987 through which the trial court had allotted the house in dispute to the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Officer.2. The petitioner filed an allotment application with regard to the house in dispute on the allegation that Harish Chandra the tenant had constructed his own house in the same vicinity. The house was got inspected. The Rent Control Inspector without intimating either the landlord respondent No. 2 or the tenant Harish Chandra, allegedly inspected the house and submitted report. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, without issuing any notice either to the landlord-respondent No. 2 or the tenant Harish Chandra declared the vacancy o...
Jagat NaraIn Singh Vs. Director of Education (Secondary) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2882; (2003)2UPLBEC1684
S.U. Khan, J.1. J. N. Singh, petitioner in the first writ petition and B.P. Singh petitioner in the second writ petition are rival claimants for one post of teacher in Sri Laxmi Narain Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Meja, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college). Director of Education by order dated 22.4.1998 has negatived the claim of both. The Director passed the order on appeal of J.N. Singh which was filed in pursuance of judgment dated 11.11.1997 given in special appeal by this Court, which was filed by J.N. Singh. Judgment of the Special Appeal No. 270 of 1995 is Annexure-7 and consequent order of the Director is Annexure-8 to the first of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by J.N. Singh.2. In the judgment of the aforesaid special appeal, it was directed that the Director of Education shall decide the appeal after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. It was observed that 'matter should be considered by the Director of Education, who will consider the validity ...
Krishna Murti Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2897
ORDERS.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. Challenge in this petition is the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The prescribed authority rejected the objection filed by the petitioner against which appeal was filed by him which has also been dismissed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his argument on various aspects dealing with the facts and law, which was contested by learned standing counsel but the Court feels that on the facts and for the reasons, which is being recorded in this judgment, going into various details may not be required as the writ petition is being allowed on a very short ground. The appellate authority has affirmed the judgment of prescribed authority. Although, it has been said by this Court as well as also by the Apex Court that in the judgment of affirmance, the h...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anwar Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC584
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Insurer-appellant.2. Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent caveators, who has appeared at this stage has also been heard.3. The appellant-Insurance Company feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as just compensation, to which the dependents of the deceased Kumari Maina aged about 8 years were found entitled to on account of her untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, which was insured by the present insurer-appellant covering the risk.4. The only submission urged and pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.5. It may be noticed that the appellant had obtained the permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.6. We have heard the learned Counsel on the aforesaid question.7. In the pres...
Shiv Shanker Pal Vs. Gorakhpur Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2884; (2003)3UPLBEC2271
D.P. Singh, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present while none has appeared for the contesting respondent even in the revised list.2. From the record, it is apparent that earlier Sri G.P. Mathur, as he then was (now Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur) was appearing as counsel for the respondents and after his elevation notice was issued in the year 1993 to the respondents for engaging another counsel but none has filed his appearance, though notice is sufficient in view of the office report dated 1.7.2003. I see no reason to adjourn the case on this score, especially so, when pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.4. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 24.11.1987 by which the temporary promotion of the petitioner has been recalled and he has been reverted to his original post. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its own mem...
Smt. Veena Kushwaha and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2902
ORDERM. Katju and R.S. Tripath, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. The petitioners have appeared before us in person and they have stated that they have married each other and are living with each other voluntarily. The petitioner No. 1 is a major as is evident from her High School Certificate, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Under the Indian Majority Act, a person whose age is above 18 years of age is a major and he/she can go anywhere and he/she can live with and marry anyone and no one can interfere, even his/her parents. 4. The petition is therefore, allowed. We direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' living together and leading a married life....
Nirmal Pandey Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1548
Vishnu Sahai, J.1.Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Nirmal Pandey has impugned the order dated 03-08-2002 passed by the first respondent Mr. Alok Kumar, District Magistrate, Faizabad, detaining him under Section 3(2) of The National Security Act.The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 03-08-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 03-08-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the petition.2, The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the first respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (annexure-2). A perusal of the annexure-2 shows that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C. R. namely C. R. No, 263 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 I.P.C. of Police Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad, registered on the basis of a ...
Ramesh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1877
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Seven persons, namely, Ramesh, Jagdish, Putti Lal, Ramrikh, Suraj Prasad, Ravindra Singh and Vishwaraj Singh were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act, Hardoi for offences punishable under Sections 148, IPC, 302 read with 149, IPC, 307 read with 149, IPC and 404, IPC. The learned Judge found all of them guilty for offences punishable under Sections 148, IPC, 302/149, IPC and 307/149, IPC. In addition, he found Ravindra Singh guilty for the offence punishable under Section 404, IPC. The learned Judge sentenced Ramesh and Jagdish to death under Section 302/149, IPC and the remaining five persons to imprisonment for life under the said section. He sentenced all seven of them to undergo 7 years' R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149, IPC and 2 years' R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC. He also sentenced Ravindra Singh to undergo 2 years' R.I. for the offence punishable un...
Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1663
Anjani Kumar, J. 1.This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me vide Order dated 2.7.2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. This writ petition is listed under the heading 'Order', as there is a stay vacated application filed on behalf of the contesting respondent. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that since the writ petition is listed only for orders, this Court should not decide the matter on merits. I find that interest of justice demands that it is in the interest of the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent that the matter may be finally decided, therefore, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits.3. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the award of the Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun dated 23rd May, 1996, passed in Adjudication Case No. 139 of 1990, copy whereof is annexed as ...
Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2804
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me vide Order dated 2.7.2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. This writ petition is listed under the heading 'Order', as there is a stay vacate application filed on behalf of the contesting Respondent Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that since the writ petition is listed only for orders, this Court should not decide the matter on merits. I find that interest of justice demands that it is in the interest of the petitioner as well as the contesting Respondent that the matter may be finally decided, therefore, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits.3. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the award of the Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun dated 23rd May, 1996, passed in Adjudication Case No. 139 of 1990, copy whereof is annexed as An...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »