Allahabad Court November 2004 Judgments
Rihanda Mal Sindhi Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC110; 2005(1)AWC365
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court whereby the revision filed by the landlord under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed, approach this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant with the allegations that the tenant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the 'Act') and thus he is liable to be ejected by decree of the Court. Before the trial court the petitioner-tenant has taken up the case that landlord Is in habit of harassing the petitioner-tenant as would be clear from the fact that respondent-landlord filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 251 of 1976 for ejectment and recovery of rent which was dismissed on 9th July 1977. A revision against the aforesaid decree was also dismissed. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Ajeet Singh Vs. A.D.J., Court No. 1 and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC199; 2005(1)AWC437
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant questions the order dated 16th September, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the 'Act'), copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of the prescribed authority dated 29th July, 2003, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has been dismissed.2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act. The notice of the aforesaid application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act was issued by the prescribed authority to the petitioner-tenant and the service of the said notice was held sufficient by the prescribed authority and according to the order passed by the prescribed authority the tenant has not a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Agarwal Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC205; 2005(1)AWC874
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition petitioner tenant has challenged the order passed by the revisional court dated 7.7.2004 whereby the revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court dated 3.12.2003.2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit against the petitioner-tenant for arrears or rent and ejectment. The tenant contested the aforesaid suit. The respondent-landlord filed an application 18C under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil- Procedure with the prayer that since the tenant has not complied with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his defence may be struck off. The petitioner-tenant filed objection 19C to the aforesaid 18C denying the allegations made in the application 18C that the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in the State of U.P. which are reproduced below :Order XV Rule 5'5. Striking off defence for failure to...
Tag this Judgment!Garg Plastics Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC618
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the employer-petitioners have challenged the Order passed. by the Labour Court dated 28th April, 1983, in adjudication case No. 64 of 1978, whereby the Labour Court has recalled the Order dated 10th July, 1981, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'VIII' to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the Order dated 31st June, 1973 in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, here-in-after referred to as the 'Act':'KYA SEVA YOJKON DWARA PARISMISHT MEN ULLIKHIT SHRAMIKON KO DINANK 25.11.72 SE 8.12.72 TAK KARYA SE VANCHIT RAKHNA TATHA DINANK 11.1.73 SE PUNAH KARYA SE VANCHIT RAKHNA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAH1N, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/KSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?'3. The Labour Court vide his ex-parte award dated 16th December, 1980 answered the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Industrial Tribunal (i) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR349]; (2005)1UPLBEC649
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was decided by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 31st August, 2001, whereby this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the award of the Labour Court dated 20th May, 1992.2. The employer-respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition, aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, preferred a Review Application No. 84200 of 2001. This Court after hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties vide its judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2002 rejected the aforesaid application.3. The employer-respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21145-21146 21145-21146 of 2002 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to grant leave and decided the Civil Appeal Nos. 7028-7029 of 2003 vide its judgment dated 1st September, 2003. The Supreme Court directed the matter to be decided afresh by ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. A.D.J., (Court No. 9) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC95; 2005(1)AWC978
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Since these two writ petitions have arisen out of same set of facts, therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In, short, the facts of the case are that the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, late Radha Krishna was tenant of a shop and father of petitioner No. 3, namely, late Mushtaque Ahmad was tenant of another shop. The then landlord, namely, Pratap Narain Jaiswal filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for release of the aforesaid shops in his favour on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and re-construction. During the pendency of the aforesaid application before the prescribed authority, the parties entered into a compromise wherein it was agreed that the landlord will take the residential portion on the first floor and on the ground floor, the shops will be constructed. The father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall be p...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Ishwar Sahai Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1209
Janardan Sahai, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Ishwar Sahai Pathak and Rakesh Singh restraining the defendants from terminating the services of the plaintiffs illegally and from interfering in the plaintiffs' working as Assistant Teachers in Jagatpur Inter College and for regular payment of salary of Assistant Teacher and for arrears of salary from the date of their appointment. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed. This second appeal has been filed by the State of U.P., District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and the Accounts Officer of the Office of District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi who were defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Jagatpur Inter College, Rohania, Varanasi is a recognised aided institution and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Se...
Tag this Judgment!Committed of Management, National Inter College and anr. Vs. Joint Dir ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC988; 2005(1)ESC740
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary, on behalf of the petitioners, learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri N. L. Pandey on behalf of the respondent No. 3.2. National Inter College Lalkurti, Meerut, Cantt. is a minority institution, recognized under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The said institution has its own approved scheme of administration. The Committee of Management of the institution is elected strictly in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid scheme of administration.3. The last undisputed elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the institution were held on 7th January, 2001. The term of the Committee of Management as provided under the approved scheme of administration is three years with a rider that in case newly elected office bearers do not assume the charge within one month from the expiry of the term, the Committee of Management shall...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti Vs. Iiird A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC127; 2005(1)AWC995
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord has challenged the order dated 25th August, 1986, passed by the revisional court, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial court. The trial court vide his order dated 4th January, 1985 has decreed the suit against the petitioner-plaintiff.2. In short, the case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the petitioner is a society registered under the provision of Societies Registration Act, I860, which runs an educational institution Anupam Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sambhal, district Moradabad, which is recognized institution by District Basic Education Officer, Mordabad since 27th November, 1982, the defendant of the suit is tenant in the aforesaid building in question, which was originally owned by Smt. Asharfi Devi. Smt. Asharfi Devi vide registered gift deed dated 20th June, 1981 donated the building in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Ganshyam Das Arora (Dr.) and anr. Vs. Roop Kishore Chandak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC189
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority whereby both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.2. The respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the son of the landlord has grown up and has passed in M. Com examination. He wants to start his own business in the shop in dispute. Therefore, to establish his son the landlord bona fide requires the shop in question and the need of the landlord is more pressing as compared to that of the tenant inasmuch as the tenants are carrying on business of brick kiln. It was, therefore, prayed for that the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord. It is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »