Allahabad Court March 2004 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.
Shiv Ram Vs. Ram Veer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All324; 2004(2)AWC1308
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law, namely :'Whether the lower appellate court could non-suit the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that he possessed 125 bighas of land in the circumstances of the present case?'2. The brief facts leading to the second appeal is that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.5.1981, wherein, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land for. a sum of Rs. 11,000 out of which the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 4,000 as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs. 7,000 was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. It was alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the other hand the defendant was resiling from the contract and was not willing to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant and inspite of the receipt of the notice, the defendant did not execute the sa...
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Collector
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All234; 2004(2)AWC1729
V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed dealer by the Indian Oil Corporation for Liquid Petroleum Gas (in brief the LPG) at Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, He purchased a land on 30.5.1986 by registered sale deed on Tilhar Road. He was granted licence on 14.7.1986 by the Government of India, Department of Explosives for construction of godowns for storage of LPG on 5.7.1986. The Municipal Board sanctioned the map of the petitioner for construction of show room and godown. The petitioner on 16.7.1986 made an application for permission to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for construction for godown and showroom on National Highway No. 24, Lucknow-Bareilly Road and submitted the sanctioned map along with other papers as provided by Section 6 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (in brief the Act). The application of the petitioner was sent by the office of the District Magistrate on 18.7.1986 to the Resident Engineer, National Highway, Shahjahanpur. The petitioner did n...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1818
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.10.1994 and 18.7.1995 (Annexures-6 and 7 respectively).2. For the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, it will be useful to summarize the facts. Proceedings are under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjustment of chaks between the chak holders. Petitioners are chak holder No. 113 whereas respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 281 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are chak holder No. 280 which was allotted to them at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, At the initial stage petitioners were given two chaks, i.e., 1st on plot No. 282, etc. and second on plot No. 442, etc. Against the proposed allotment petitioners filed objection with the claim that their second chak be abolished and entire land be given ...
Mahendra Pal Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1278
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellants had obtained a certificate of Prashikshan Praman Patra issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh as equivalent to Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh and on that post the petitioner-appellants had sought appointment by submitting their application to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in District Banda, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.8.1996, wherein the requisite qualifications had been B.T.C., S.T.C., J.T.C. or T.C.3. Appellants' case had been that the certificate possessed by them had not been recognised by the State of Utter Pradesh equivalent to the either of the said qualifications, thus, this Cou...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Cess Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1933; [2004(101)FLR462]
V.M. Sahai and Krishna Murari, JJ.1. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of batteries (dry cells), miniature lamps and torches. It has two industrial establishments. In one establishment torches and miniature lamps and in the other batteries (dry cells) are manufactured. The petitioner received a notice dated 27.12.1979 from the Cess Officer to submit a return regarding quantity of water consumed for every calendar month with effect from 1.4.1978 and pay cess to the Board. On 5.1.1980 the petitioner submitted his reply that his industry is not covered under Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (in brief the Act). The Cess Officer on 15.1.1980 wrote to the petitioner to furnish the details of raw materials used and products manufactured in the factory of the petitioner. Before the petitioner could furnish the details he received two assessment orders passed by the Cess Officer on 4.2.1980 ...
Mahendra Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2182
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 27.11.2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned single Judge.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellants had obtained a certificate of Prashikshan Praman Patra issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh as equivalent to Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh and on that post the petitioners-appellants had sought appointment by submitting their application to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in District Banda, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.8.1996, wherein the requisite qualifications had been B.T.C., S.T.C., J.T.C. or T.C.3. Appellants' case had been that the certificate possessed by them had not been recognised by the State of Uttar Pradesh equivalent to the either of the said qualifications, thus, this Co...
Krishna Chandra Chaurasiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1409; (2004)2UPLBEC1784
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This intra-Court Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2003 rendered by learned single Judge.2. The brief facts are that the appellant-petitioner Krishna Chandra Chaurasiya applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in Border Security Force and he filled up the prescribed form. While filling up the form on 6.3.2002, he had to give certain informations to the queries as detailed in Part A. In the answer to query at Sl. No. 12, he was to give the detailed particulars if he was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, bound over, interned, extended or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or outside'. In reply to this query, the simple answer given by the petitioner was 'No'. After the form was filled up, the petitioner was called for physical test and interview in which he was finally selected for being included in the select list of candidates. Subsequent thereto, a character verification of the petitioner was got cond...
Laxmi Narayan and ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Shamli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1438; (2004)2UPLBEC1820
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the land bearing khasra No. 2362 situate at Budhana Road, Hanuman Tila, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar having an area 1200 sq. meter.2. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners are bhumidhars of ten biswas of land numbering khasra plot No. 2362 of about 1260 sq. meters. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is alleged that Nagar Palika, Shamli usurped this land by constructing a public road on it connecting Hanuman Teela with Budhana Road. It is alleged that there was no notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and without taking recourse to the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act the possession of the aforesaid land was taken by the Nagar Palika, Shamli illegally.3. The petitioner then filed a civil suit No. 683 of 1986 which was decreed on 31.5.1991. True copy of the judgment dated 31.5.1991 is Annexure-1 to the writ peti...
Prem Singh Vs. District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consoli ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1541
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2003, passed by the Collector, Agra. A writ of mandamus has also been sought praying for a direction to the respondents not to allot the land of Gram Panchayat to any other person till the finality of consolidation scheme.3. Petitioner's case is that the village is under consolidation operation. The petitioner had come up before this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No. 38387 of 2003 praying that the respondents be directed not to allot any land during the pendency of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This Court by order dated 23.8.2003 disposed of the writ petition which order is being quoted below :'Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allot any land to any person during the pendency of t...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Mohd. Nahid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1804
ORDERM. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed beyond time by one year and one hundred and 84 days. The impugned judgment of the reference court was delivered on 4.12.1998 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. This appeal has been filed on 18.9.2000 along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act.2. In the affidavit along with the aforesaid application it is stated that information about the judgment dated 4.12.1998 was received from the D.G.C. (Civil) in the office of the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr on 28.12.1998. A letter dated 30.12.1998 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to D.G.C. (Civil) for certified copy of the judgment and decree, and also for a legal opinion. The opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil), Bulandshahr was received on 14.1.1999.3. Thereafter a letter dated 20.1.1999 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body for his consent to file an appeal and the consent was received on 2.2.1999. Ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »