Allahabad Court September 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.
Shrimati Devi (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC162
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-landlord, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and directed return of the plaint under Section 23 of the Act to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court (on the regular side).2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant-tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant. The tenant contested the aforesaid suit and alleged that the petitioner was neither owner nor there was any relationship of landlord and tenant and it was further alleged that the amount said to have paid by the defendant-tenant was in fact loan taken by Smt. Chunia, the mother of defendant, and since there does not exist...
Shiksha Samiti Tilaura and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC194
ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Order dated 5th August, 2004 was wrongly passed in the present writ petition inasmuch as the order under challenge is a notice issued by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act and, therefore, the records of the Regional Level Committee as directed under the order dated 5.8.2004 are not required to be submitted.2. I have heard Sri A.K. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R. K. Ojha on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 to 18 and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.3. Shiksha Samiti Tilaura, Gorakhpur is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. Sri Ashtabhuja Prasad Tripathi claims himself to be the Secretary of the said society.4. According to the petitioner elections for constituting the office bearers of the society were held under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act by the Assistant Registrar. The result of the elections was d...
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Xivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC256
S.U. Khan, J.1. The only point involved in this writ petition relates to interpretation of 'first hearing' as given in the Explanation to Section 20 (4) of U.P. Rent Control Act, (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as Act, and its applicability upon the facts of the instant case.2. The suit giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed by landlady respondent No. 3 against the tenant petitioner on 8.9.1993. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 162 of 1993 on the file of J.S.C.C. Allahabad (Later on suit was transferred to Additional J.S.C.C.). Prior to filing of the suit tenancy was determined through notice dated 13.4.1993. served upon the tenant on 28.4.1993. In the notice as well as in the plaint, rent from February, 1984 was demanded. Tenant had already deposited the rent from February, 1984 till April, 1992 under Section 30 of the Act. After filing of the suit summons were issued to the defendant fixing 30.11.1993 as the date of hearing. On 30.11.1993. the ...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC267
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 3.2.1978 passed by Consolidation Officer and 25.2.1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, respectively.2. I have heard Sri Arun Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners.3. The facts in brief are that plot No. 446 situate in village Gulampur district Allahabad was recorded in the name of the petitioners in the basic year. The respondent No. 4 filed an objection under Section 9(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming that his name be recorded as co-tenure holder over 1/2 share of the said property. The claim of respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.2.1978 determined the share of respondent No. 4 to be 1/3rd. Both, the respondent No. 4 and the petitioners filed appeal against the said order. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 2.7.1979 allowed the ap...
Smt. Manraji Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC704
Krishna Murari, J. 1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.4.1976, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and to modify the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the extent that share of the petitioner may be declared 1/3rd in the property in dispute.2. I have heard Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.3. The dispute relates to khata Nos. 35, 83, 85, 30, 89 and 59 of village Khojaon and khata Nos. 9, 10 and 65 of village Ram Deia.4. In basic year khatauni the name of the petitioner was recorded over khata Nos. 36, 85 and 83 situate in village Khojaon and khata No. 9 of Ram Deia. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9A (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that her name was recorded over a...
Naseeb Ahmad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC594; (2005)1UPLBEC958
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, which had been subject-matter of the land acquisition proceedings and declare that the said proceedings stood lapsed.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the same was published on 6.6.1983 in the U. P. Gazette, in respect of 362-12-14 bighas comprising in revenue estate of 2-3 villages. It included the land of the petitioner No. 4 consisting of Khasra No. 4 measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of the said entire land on 16.6.1983 alongwith a notification under Sections 17 and 17(1A) of the Act. Thus, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with. On 2.4.1985, the possession of the most of land had b...
Ganesh Prasad Alias Ganno Nai Vs. Rajendra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC586
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-tenant who is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court on revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit against the petitioner-tenant claiming arrears of rent, damages, water tax which is claimed as under :(a) Rent ofmesne profitsfor 3 years Rs. 1,440.00(b) Water Tax onrental valueof Rs. 1,440at the rate of14% for threeyears. Rs. 201.00(c) Cost ofnotice Rs. 300.00--------------Total Rs. 1,941.00--------------3. The suit has been valued as per valuation of the Court at Rs. 1,941.60.4. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid suit on various grounds amongst others that the suit is barred under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as no valid notice terminating the tenancy has been served on him and further that the tenant is not liable to pay any amount.5. On the pl...
Kavita Yadav Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC988
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assist by Sri Krishna Ji Khare and Sri S.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.2. Kavita Yadav, the petitioner was a candidate for the Entrance Examination conducted by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for admission to M.F.A. (Master of Fine Arts) two years degree course. After the said Entrance Examination a select list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 6. She was issued a call letter informing her that she must report for admission on 19.7.2004 in the Chairman's Office, Department of Fine Arts between 9.00 a.m. to 4,00 p.m.3. It is admitted case of the petitioner that she could not report on 19.7.2004 within time specified in the call letter.4. It is alleged that the petitioner reached Aligarh on 19.7.2004 in the evening and report...
U.P. State Irrigation Department Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1253; (2005)2UPLBEC1459
V.C. Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri R. K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 6.1.1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V), U. P. Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'the Industrial Tribunal') in Adjudication Case No. 228 of 1991 declaring the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 30.6.1988 as improper and unlawful entitling him to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner U. P. State Irrigation Department Unit Upper Ganga Irrigation Modernization Project, (World Bank) Quality Control Division (World Bank) Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department') employed the respondent No. 2-Praduman Kumar Singhal on a stop gap arrangement on the post of a clerk in the Department for a fixed t...
Maya Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Nirbhai Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC56
S.U. Khan, J.1. After setting aside the judgment dated 19.3.2004 through which I had earlier allowed the writ petition exparte, learned Counsel for both the parties were heard on merit.2. The first point argued by learned Counsel for tenant-respondent is that Harveer Singh and his brother Sohanveer Singh were distinct owners of two portions of the shop in dispute hence release application by Harveer Singh alone under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable on the ground that he was at least one of the co-owners. This argument is not substantiated by written statement copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In Paragraph 26 of the written statement, the tenant-respondent claimed himself to be the owner of one khand or (portion) of the shop. No such plea of ownership of separate portions of the two brothers i.e. Harveer Singh and Sohanveer Singh was taken in the written statement.3. Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of the landlord-petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »