Allahabad Court July 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.
Naushad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2772
ORDERK.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 10th May, 2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 230/01 Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P. by which the revision filed by respondent No. 2 Mohd. Aslam was allowed and the Magistrate concerned was directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to investigation of the version of the revisionist by some Senior Officer of the Police not below the rank of Deputy Suptt. of Police. It was also directed that the same officer would investigate the matter with effect from initial stage ignoring the investigation already done. This revision was preferred against order dated 9-2-2001 by which the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar had rejected the application of Mohd. Aslam, respondent No. 2 moved under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In the instant revision, earlier argument of Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA was heard an...
Jag NaraIn (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3066
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.8.1975, 7.11.1974 and 24.9.1974 (Annexures-10, 9 and 8 respectively).2. Proceedings are under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore, for the purpose of disposal, the facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.3. The dispute was initially in respect to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 133, 132, 94 and 111 situated in village Begahani, district Allahabad. Now it appears that the land of Khata No. 111 is not in dispute and as submitted by the learned counsel the dispute is confined only in respect to the land comprised in Khata No. 133 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of Jag Narain and Buddhu and the land comprised in Khata Nos. 132 and 111 which was recorded in the basic year record ...
Naring Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. DIn Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur Univers ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3123; (2004)3UPLBEC2733
B.S. Chauhan and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated- 18.5.2004, by which the writ petition filed by the appellants. No. 51327 of 2003 has been dismissed. Appellants claim that they were class IV employees and as per the statutory provisions applicable in the respondent University they became eligible to be considered' for a limited quota for promotion to class III. Both the appellants along with one other person were found suitable and were promoted to class III. The said promotions were not approved by the learned Vice-Chancellor, rather rejected vide order dated 10.5.2001, on the ground that the documents with regard to the selections were not available, nor there was any vacancy to be filled up in the promotional quota. It appears, that subsequently, the Vice Chancellor approved the selection however, vide order dated 10.11.2003, the learned Vice Chancellor Initiated the inquiry receiving seriou...
Kailash Nath and anr. Vs. Rajiv Ratan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3064
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Judge Small Cause Court allowing the defendant's application for setting aside the ex parte order.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to narrate the brief facts of this case. It transpires that 21.5.1987 was fixed for evidence, on which date the defendant did not appear and the plaintiff was present. Accordingly, the Court passed an order to proceed ex parte against the defendant. It further transpires that the Court proceeded to hear the case and in support of his case, the plaintiff filed his affidavit as evidence. Before the judgment could be delivered, the defendant appeared and moved an application along with an affidavit praying that the order directing the case to proceed ex parte be recalled in the interest of Justice. An objection on this application was filed by the plaintiff and the matter was adjourned ...
Hari Prakash Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC50
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Sri P.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for respondent No. 2 even though the list has been revised.2. This writ petition by allottee tenant is directed against judgment and order dated 24.5.1985 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 231 of 1984 through which allotment order in favour of the petitioner passed by R.C. and E.O. dated 24.8.1984 has been set-aside and shop in dispute has been allotted to respondent No. 2. For the allotment of the shop in dispute only petitioner and respondent No. 2 were applicants. Landlord before R.C. and E.O. filed an affidavit giving his consent for allotment in favour of the petitioner of the shop in dispute. Copy of the said affidavit is Annexure 6 to the writ petition.3. Initially shop in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner by R.C. and E.O. on 16.8.1982 against which respondent No. 2 filed a revision, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded. After ...
Shiv NaraIn Singh (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All45; 2004(4)AWC3050
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Dismissal of second appeal as having abated for not filing substitution application seeking substitution of respondent Nos. 7 and 1 in the array of parties within the statutory period, has been the-causative factor leading to filing of the present petition challenging the judgment dated 2.11.1993. passed by Board of Revenue.2. In the suit instituted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 229B/176 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act relief sought was for declaring themselves to be co-bhumidhars with defendant No. 1 of Schedule A and co-sirdars of Schedule B and further claiming that their 2/5th share be separated. The decision rendered by Asstt. Collector. 1st Class Varanasi. held Bhonu. father of the petitioner to be sole sirdar of plot No. 31/1 and Lurkhur to be the sole sirdar of plot No. 28/2 and for the rest of the land suit was decreed. The appeal preferred against the said decision ended up in dismissal and consequently, a second appeal was filed by Bhonu, fa...
Harihar Nath (D) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consoli ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3678
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein are the orders dated 2 7.12.1967, 26.1 1.1969 and 11.11.1974, passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.2. The land in dispute is recorded as talab in the basic year and petitioners had their names recorded in column No. 6 of the khatauni. On publication of the record under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, objections were preferred under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioners claiming themselves to be 'sirdar' and placed reliance on Khasra Nos. 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1368 and 1370 fasli to buttress their claims. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 27.12.1967 containing direction to record the land as Gaon Sabha land and to expunge name of the petitioners from column No. 6 of the khatauni. In appeal as well as in revision, this order of the Consolidation Officer rec...
Badshah and ors. (In Jail) Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ346
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. A First Information Report for the offence of abduction in order to commit murder of the Kidnappe- Suraj Pal son of Jagan Lal was lodged by his brother Pahalwan Singh (PW1),Jn the afternoon of 24-5-1980 at 5.15 p.m. at Police Station Kuraoli, District Mainpuri. This F. I. R. named all the 8 accused persons i.e. (1) Badshah S/o Lakhan Singh, (2) Suraj Pal S/o Lakhan Singh, (3) Mulaim Singh S/o Kunji Lal, (4) Rakesh Pal S/o Kunji Lal, (5) Rameshwar S/o Hanshraj, (6) Buddu S/o Tika Ram, (7) Achche Lal S/o Buddu all residents of Village Kheria and (8) Dhara Singh S/o Hori Singh, resident of Salempur. It is disclosed in the FIR that the 8 accused persons in the night hours of 23-5-1980 at about 10.00 P. M. all armed with guns reached at the tube well of the complainant located in the western side of the village and caught hold of his brother Suraj Pal who was sleeping there along with PW-2 Puttu Lal, PW-3 Ram Pal, Sumer Singh, Bhumipal Singh, and Khetal Singh. The...
Smt. Shail Kumari and ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All35; 2005(1)ARC582; 2005(1)AWC625
ORDERDevi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the writ petition1 at the admission stage.1. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-opposite parties No. 7 and 8. Copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. According to the plaint, petitioner has prayed that the respondents- defendants' may be restrained from raising any construction over the adjoining land towards west to plaintiffs house and also not to Interfere in plaintiffs peaceful possession. According to the plaint, petitioners had claimed the exclusive ownership of the house in which they are residing.2. An application was moved by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment as party. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. According to the application moved by the op...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC630
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. K. Rastogi, holding brief of Sri N. K. Seth learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned standing counsel.2. Sri D. K. Rastogi holding brief of Shri N. K. Seth, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank at the time of commencement of hearing submitted that in case entire dues is paid to the respondent-bank in easy instalments he has got no objection and ready to accept the same. Affidavits have been exchanged. Hence, with the consent of parties, I have proceeded to decide the writ petition at admission stage.3. Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and father of the petitioner No. 2 had taken agricultural loan for the purchase of a tractor from opposite party No. 3. On account of default of payment of dues, the respondent-bank had sent a reference to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It was submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners had approached the respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »