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.
Dharam Pal Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1673
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the trial court on the issue of jurisdiction as to whether the suit in question is triable by civil court or by revenue court,2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit on the allegation that Khedoo was co-bhumidhar of the land to dispute which is mentioned at the foot of the plaint, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Khedoo died and his interest was inherited by his widow Sohbatta, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, Respondent No. 3, Sohbatta, remarried with Rajbali, resident of Devapar. Consequently her bhumidhari rights came to an end from the date of her remarriage. Smt. Sohbatta by three sale deeds dated 7.12.1965, 7.12.1965 and 15.2.1975 transferred her co-bhumidhari rights to respo...
Zakaullah (In Jail) Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2021
K.K. Misra, J.1. Both the above Habeas Corpus writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned detention orders dated 4-3-2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, respondent No. 2, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned detention orders dated 4-3-2004 have been passed on the basis of the one and the same FIR, hence both the petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. In the grounds of detention, Annexure-2 to the petition, it is stated that on 21-2-2004 at about 9 p.m. in Mohalla Rahmatganj, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti when informant Mohd. Ashraf along with his brother Akmal Khan and some other persons of his Mohalla was going to his house and reached near the house of the petitioner Zaka Ullah and his brother Wasi Ullah, they along with his associates were standing there and upon seeing them they began to hurl abuses on the Corporator Akmal Khan. When the informant and his companions objected, Wasi - Ullah and Inayat Ullah fired upon Akmal...
Raj NaraIn (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolida ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1641
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.1973, 1.10.1973 and 16.2.19.74, passed by Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation, respectively,2. The dispute pertains to Khata No. 35. In the basic year it was recorded in the name of petitioners. and contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings /Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed by the contesting respondents claiming 2/3rd share in the khata in dispute.3. To appreciate the facts and the controversy involved in the case, it would be helpful to notice the following pedigree. Hulas Rai |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |Zalim Singh Guru Sahai Sanehi Lal Shiv Sahai Lal | | | XSarjoo Prasad Krishna Charan Anandi Prasad | alias Bachi LalX |----------------...
Pooran Chand JaIn Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2241
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.2. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order dated 6th March, 1987, passed by the prescribed authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority has allowed the application for release of the accommodation in question under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', approached the appellate authority by means of an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority vide its order dated 10th February, 1993 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. In short, the facts of the present ca...
Dharam Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Banwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC390
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the elder brother of the deceased against the award dated 3.4.2003.2. We have heard Counsel for the appellant. The deceased was unmarried and was younger brother of the appellant. The Court below has awarded Rs. 57,000. In the circumstances of the case the amount is reasonable. There is no illegality in the order. The appeal is dismissed....
Gwalior Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(All)75
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the supplementary partnership deed dt. 25th Jan., 1973, was not a genuine document till 27th Nov., 1980?2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no defect in the partnership deed dt. 19th Jan., 1973, in terms of Section 185(2) of the Act?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 186 of the Act were applicable to the case?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1977-78. The applicant is a firm. It has bee...
Rashid Ahmad Son of Sri Azim Ullah Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1308; [2005(105)FLR473]
V.C. Misra, J.Heard Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel & Sri Samir Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondents.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 27.10.1992 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed in Adjudication case No. 328 of 1998 by the respondent No. 3- Labour Court in favour of the employer- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the UPSRTC')- respondent No. 1 holding termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 21.3.1988, as legal and valid.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was employed as Driver in the department of U.P. Roadways and subsequently absorbed in UPSRTC, which was constituted w.e.f. 1.6.1974, under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation act, 1950. In 1987, the petitioner was directed to be examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr. On the basis of the said medical report wherein it had been...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Rani Laxmi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(All)496; [2005]276ITR388(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the various penalties levied by the WTO ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1975-76. The respondent-assessee had made a disclosure of a net wealth in terms of Section 15(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, subsequently replaced by the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disclosure Act'). As required under Rule 5 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Rules, 1975, the respondent-assessee had made the declaration in duplicate in Form C and were accompanied by return of net wealth in the form prescribed...
Ram Kishore Seth (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ram Avtar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC42; 2005(2)AWC1774
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second appeal against the judgment dated 19.4.1979 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No. 130/1979: Ram Avtar v. Ram Kishore Seth and Ors. allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1977 passed by Munsif South, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 784/68: Ram Kishore Seth v. Smt Godawari Devi.2. In this appeal, I heard Shri S.K. Mehrotra, Advocate, for the defendant-appellant. In spite of the best efforts, the learned Counsel for the respondents did not appear to argue the appeal. Firstly, the matter was adjourned on the request of Shri B.K. Saxena, Advocate, Counsel for the respondents and then a notice was also sent to Shri B.K. Saxena, Advocate by the registry for 15.9.2004 when this appeal was listed for hearing. On 15.9.2004, also Shri B.K. Saxena did not appear. Therefore, the appeal was heard finally.3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Plot No. 120 measuring 2480 sq. ft. situated at...
Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1637
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. The dispute in the second appeal which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1978, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 369 of 1977 and also judgment and decree dated 23.4.1977 passed by Munsif (East) Allahabad in Suit No. 439 of 1972 revolves round the house constructed over a silver of plot No. 559 which is a grove land situated in village Kajia Pargana Nawabganj Post Office Athrampur district, Allahabad.2. The plaintiffs initially instituted Suit No. 439 of 1972 for the relief of ejectment and possession of the land in suit and the premises in suit which are marked by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Ta and Tha. The facts set out in the plaint are that the grandfather of the plaintiff had given permission to the father of the defendant to reside in the house in question and after his death, to the defendant who had assured the plaintiff to vacate the premises in question but subsequently, he recanted on his assurance and c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »