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.
Vijay Prakash Telang Vs. Additional District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3743
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 10.10.1986 and 18.12.1986 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question. This premises was in the possession of Sri Vinod Kumar. The petitioner moved an application for release of the shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need for his son. The prescribed authority allowed the application holding that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine and released the premises in question by an order dated 5.8.1985. Subsequently, the petitioner was given possession of the shop in question by the tenant. The petitioner thereafter, carried out extensive repairs in the premises in question. Consequently, the shop remained locked and could not be used for business purpose.2. It transpires that on the basis of an application of a prospective allottee the inspector submit...
Malkhan and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ161
M.C. Jain, J.1. All these five criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 13-6-1980 passed by Sri R.C. Chaturvedi the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 313 of 1979. This being so, they are being decided by this common judgment. In Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 1980 the appellant is Malkhan, Raj Pal is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1494 of 1980, Vijai Singh and Khajan are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1495 of 1980, Bachchan is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 1980 and Choba is the appellant in Criminal Applicant No. 2072 of 1980. All of them have been convicted under Section 396, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the impugned judgment.2. The incident occurred in between the night of 29/30-6-1979 at about mid-night in village Beru alias Berua within P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura. An armed dacoity was committed at the house of Maharaj Singh P.W. 1 in which a girl Mamta aged about 12 years was murdered and Maharaj ...
Committee of Management, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3247; (2004)3UPLBEC2235
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue as the Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Moradabad till the new Committee of Management is constituted by holding elections.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Moradabad is a Central Co-operative Society duly registered and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called 'the Act' and the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Rules'. The last election of the Committee of Management of the said Bank was held on 6th July, 1999 and the tenure at that time of the Committee so elected had been three years. However, prior to the expiry of the said tenure, the provisions of the Act were amended and the tenure of the Committee so elected was made for five years in stead of three years and in p...
Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2888
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody is present on behalf of the Union of India. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Vinod Swaroop.2. On behalf of the Central Board of Secondary Education Sri H. N. Pandey has filed an application under Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules stating therein that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of the Board, which is a necessary party to the writ proceedings. Along with the said application, the Central Board of Secondary Education has also filed its counter-affidavit giving reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. Rejoinder-affidavit to the said counter-affidavit has been filed today, which may be taken on record.3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the academic career of the student should not be permitted to be jeopardized on a hyper-technical ground of non-impleadment of Central Board of Secondary Education as su...
B.M. Varma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2866; [2005]128CompCas860(All)
A.K. Yog, J.1. Earlier a Writ Petition (No. 45950 of 2003) was filed by the petitioner on more or less identical facts and grounds, as the present petition. It had several defects and, therefore, not entertained on merits and dismissed on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner himself without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to the fresh writ petition so as to enable the petitioner to overcome the defects, which had crept inadvertently.Petitioner, in the present writ petition, has claimed following reliefs :'(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 20th September, 2003, passed by respondents (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) ;(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to continue the petitioner as the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Company, Varanasi :(a) to issue a writ. order or direction in the nature of certiorari ...
Kashi Prasad Dwivedi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3072
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the petitioners land, or in the alternative to restore back possession of the said land which has been illegally occupied by the respondents and to pay damages.2. We have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh and V. K. S. Chandel learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. In this case on 23.4.2004 learned standing counsel was granted one month's time to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit was filed. Thereafter on 28.5.2004 again one month's further time was granted to file counter-affidavit and it was ordered that the writ petition will be listed peremptorily in the week commencing 5.7.2004. However, despite this order no counter-affidavit was filed. We are not inclined to grant any further time and we are treating the allegations in the petition to be correct.4. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the petition...
Thakur Radhendra Kishore Ji Maharaj Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2881
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring the vacancy in the premises in question as well as the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the release application of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and also the revisional order. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the property in question is owned by a charitable trust known as 'Thakur Radhendra Kishore JI Maharaj Birajman', Tikari, Raj Mandir, Gyan Gudri, Brindaban. The said property is being managed by its trustee Smt. Rani Umeshwari Kunwarji.2. It transpires that the respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 16 of the Act praying that the ground floor of the premises of the temple be allotted in his favour. The said application was also accompanied by a letter of Smt. Rani, the trustee, allegedly giving her consent for the allotment of the premises in favour of respondent...
Roshan Lal Sharma Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2863; (2004)3UPLBEC2715
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.7.2004.3. The appellant was a Lekhpal posted in district Aligarh. He was transferred to another Tehsil in the same district. Since he did not obey the transfer order he was suspended pending inquiry vide suspension order dated 16.10.2002.4. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, as transfer is an exigency of service. Moreover, the appellant was transferred within the same district. Hence, there was no' justification for not obeying the transfer order, and he was rightly suspended.5. This appeal is therefore, dismissed.6. Before parting with this case we would like to say that a large number of frivolous cases are being filed in this Court and this is one of them. The appellant was transferred within the same district and hence there was no justification for his filing a writ petition...
Ram Kumar Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC682; 2004(4)AWC2883
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The etitioner is the landlord of the shop in question and has assailed the order of the revisional court rejecting the release application. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises in question which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop for one of his sons, namely, Ajai Kumar. The petitioner contended that his son Ajai Kumar had started a business in the manufacture of soap but he needs an outlet to sell his product and do business on a better scale and, therefore, requires the shop in question. The petitioner further alleged that the defendant was not carrying on any business from the premises in question and that he keeps the disputed shop locked most of the time and that he was doing his business from his residential house No. 2/140 Nawabganj, Kanpur.2. The defe...
L.H. Sugar Factory Limited Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC766; (2004)3UPLBEC2538
R.K. Agrawal and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, L.H. Sugar Factory Limited, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to charge/realize octroi on sugarcane brought to the petitioner's factory. It further seeks refund of a sum of Rs. 81,000,00/- which is claimed to have been illegally realized as octroi on the sugarcane brought to the petitioner's factory from 14th November, 1988 to 15th January, 1989.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar by vacuum pan process and alied products at its factory situated within the Municipal Limits of Pilibhit. The petitioner purchases sugarcane from outside the Municipal Limits of Pilibhit and brings the same to its factory. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »