Allahabad Court October 2005 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.
Shanti Swaroop Goel Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1229
ORDERR.P. Misra and Krishna Murari, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The first appeal from order is directed against the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Agra, dismissing the application filed by the appellant to recall order dated 30.7.2004, dismissing the appeal in default.3. The facts are that a suit was filed by the appellant against the State of U.P. and Collector, Agra, seeking permanent injunction to restrain them from realizing a sum of Rs. 1,98,675 through coercive measure in pursuance, of the order dated 25.9.1986, passed by officer-in-charge, Mines. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 25.9.1988. The plaintiff-appellant filed First Appeal No. 917 of 1988 before this Court. The appeal was admitted and a conditional interim order was passed restraining the defendants-respondents from recovering the amount subject to the appellant furnishing security of the said amount other than cash and bank gu...
Shyam Prasad Mishra and anr. Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All56; 2006(2)AWC1235
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2005 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division Allahabad dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure ( for short the C.P.C) on the ground that plaint failed to disclose any cause of action.2. The facts are that defendant / respondent no. 2 who was the owner of house no. 79 H.I.G., Phase-II A was Vikas Parishad Jhunsi Allahabad transferred the same in favour of defendant / respondent no. 1 by means of registered sale deed dated 19-11-2004. The appellants who were the tenants of the said premises filed Original Suit No. 1040 of 2004 seeking a decree of declaration to declare the sale deed in favour of defendant / respondent No. 1 as void and not binding on the plaintiff and a further direction to respondent No. 2 to execute a sale deed of the house in question in favour of the plaintiffs after accepting Rs. 5.50 lakhs as sale consideration.3. The claim made by the plaintiff i...
Vinay Kumar Srivastava S/O Late Keshri Pd. Srivastava Vs. the State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ702
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31/8/2005 (Annex-1) by which petitioner's continuation as a Panel (Lawyer (Criminal) has been stopped under the garb of rejecting the application for renewal of his term. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide order dated 20/10/1982 (Annex-2) petitioner's name was included in the name of Panel Lawyer (Criminal) by the District Magistrate and since then he had been working continuously under the supervision and guidance of the Public Prosecutor, District Basti and now he is not being permitted to continue in view of the aforesaid impugned order. Hence this petition. 3. Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been appointed by the District Magistrate as a Panel Lawyer (Criminal) vide order dated 20/10/1982 and he was kept in a reserved category to meet out the exigency of the work/Petitioner's appointment was ...
Kapoor Chand Vs. Nemi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC131; 2006ACJ958
R.P. Misra and Krishna Murari, JJ.1. Heard Mr. M.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,64,500 along with 6 per cent interest as compensation.2. The facts are that the appellant is the owner of the tractor, which is insured with the insurance company on 12.2.2001 while the tractor was being used for carrying 'barat' an accident took place in which one Jeetu died. The dependant of the deceased filed a claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 9,50,000 along with 24 per cent interest. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has recorded the findings that the tractor was insured for being used for agricultural purpose and at the time of accident it was being used for carrying 'barat' which is not an agricultural purpose and as such the owner of the tractor has committed breach of the terms and conditions of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›