Allahabad Court November 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.
ShahbuddIn S/O SarfuddIn Vs. State of U.P. and Smt. Shakeela Divorced ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC626
M.K. Mittal, J.1. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counselor the accused applicant, learned A.G A. and perused the record.2. Application has been filed under Section 462 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by Family Court, Meerut, whereby he allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the opposite party No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 147 of 2003 Smt. Shakeela v. Shahabuddin with effect from the date of application i.e. 3.11.2003 at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month to the applicant and also Rs. 1000 per month to her daughter Nimmi. Opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance on 9.4.2003.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the accused applicant is that the applicant had already divorced opposite party No. 2 and that Km. Nimmi has become major and is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a minor child is entitled to maintenance and a child if atta...
Ram Prakash Mishra Son of Ram Saran Mishra, Assistant Teacher in L.T. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1441
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The dispute in the present writ petition pertaining to the claim of promotion of the petitioner which has not been considered by the Respondent - Joint Director of Education and the Respondent No. 5 -Ram Chandra Gupta has been extended the benefit of promotion even though he is junior to the petitioner as alleged in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are that the impugned order has been passed without deciding the claim of seniority of the petitioner over and above the Respondent No. 5 without considering the claim of promotion of the petitioner and passing the impugned order of promotion in favour of the respondent No. 5 in violation of the principles of natural justice. This challenge has been resisted by the Respondent No. 5 on the ground that the challenge to the question of seniority is highly belated' and cannot be permitted to be raised in collateral proceeding pertaining to claims of promotion. It has further been urged on behalf of the respondent No. 5...
Shyam Sunder Son of Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Ist Additional District Judg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1373
S.U. Khan, J.1. Sita Ram, his wife Vidyawati and their son Shyam Sunder, original petitioner formed a sort of unholy trinity to grab the property in dispute which is a commercial accommodation situate in Ghaziabad. (Shyam Sundar the original sole petitioner has died and has been substituted by his mother Vidyawati and brother Kamal Kishore Jindal).2. In the front portion of the accommodation in dispute (Municipal Board No. 3 Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad) there is a veranda.3. M/s Raghubir Saran Sagar Mal were the tenants of the accommodation in dispute. Sagarmal, one of the partners of the tenant firm intimated the R.C.&E.O.; through letter dated 23.4.1973 received in the office of R.C.&E.O.; on 24.4.1973 that the tenant intended to vacate the tenanted accommodation. The said intimation was filed before R.C.&E.O.; on 24.4.1973 alongwith allotment application of Vidyawati. Premises in dispute was allotted to Vidyawati by R.c.&E.O.;, Ghaziabad on 31.10/3.11.1973. The outgoing tenant Sagar Mal im...
Dr. Vinay Kumar S/O Shri Bhuvnendra Singh Vs. the Director of Educatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR537(All)]
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J., S. Rafat Alam and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.1. This is a reference made by a Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3538 of 2005 (Dr. Vinay Kumar v. the Director of Education (Higher), Allahabad and Ors.).2. The three questions referred by the Hon'ble Division Bench will be found at the end of the judgement at internal Page 16.3. The said three questions are set out below:-1. Whether law laid down in Dr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Anr. 2003 (1) AWC 142 by this Court and followed in Alak Rani Gupta (km.) v. Director of Education (Higher) and Anr. 2003 (2) ESC 944, is contrary to and in violation of the letter and intent of the express language used by the legislature in Section 13 of the Act, 1980 read with Regulation 5 of Regulations, 1983? ' 2. Whether it is permissible for the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to either add or amend a statutory provision by enu...
Virendra Singh Son of Shri Manohar Singh Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1540
Vineet Saran, J.1. In the year 1980 the petitioner was granted adjacency of a fair Village Udai Sarain, Block Bhitaura, Tahsil and District Fatehpur which he has since then been running. According to the petitioner there has never been any complaint against the functioning of the fair price shop of the petitioner. By order dated 14.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled merely on the ground that in the year 2000 the wife of the petitioner had been elected as Up-Pradhan of the Village and thus as per the provisions of paragraph 4.7 of the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 the petitioner cannot hold the fair price shop licence. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was also dismissed by a short order dated 10.4.2001 stating that since the order has been passed in accordance with the Government Order, n...
Lakhmi Chandra Son of Sri Samanti Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, Labo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1516
Bharati Sapru, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the against an award of the Labour Court dated 22.7.1988 passed in adjudication case No. 24 of 1987. The order of reference was as hereinbelow:KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA APNE SHRMIK LAKSHMI CHANDRA PUTRA SRI SHAMANTi SINGH TUBEWELL OPERATOR KE SEWAYEN DINANK 25.8.1984 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRMIK KYA LAB/UPSUM (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT? 2. While answering the said reference, the Labour court examined the issue as to whether the school in which the petitioner was working, was an industry or not?3. Labour Court has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that a school was not an industry. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and Ors. : (1989)ILLJ61SC that a school is an industry. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a teacher is not a workman but class III and IV staf...
Gangwa S/O Binda and Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1435
S.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioners and contesting respondents are descendants of Chauba in the 4th, 5th and 6th generation.(pedigree is annexure 1 to the writ petition) Chauba had some agricultural properties situate in two villages Jamurai and Sahewa. The main dispute in between the parties is as to whether all of them had got share in the property in dispute or some of them have got exclusive share in some of the properties as it was acquired by their ancestor Janki who was one of the four sons of Chauba. Contesting respondents 4 to 8 are descendants of Janki while petitioners and respondent Nos. 9 to 15 are descendants of Pusaiya, Mathura and Judi the other three sons of Chauba. If the entire property in dispute is held and belong to Chauba then all the parties will have share therein. However, if it is held that some property was left behind by Chauba and some property was acquired by his son Janki then the property which was self-acquired property of Janki, would devolve only upon his de...
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala S/O Sri Bachan Singh Bala Vs. Iind Addition ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1545
1. The present writ petition has been filed by one Major Jasbinder Singh Bala claiming certain reliefs which arise out of the judgment dated 29.4.2002 in L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His claim is that while deciding the issue of apportionment of the compensation under Section 30, apportionment has wrongly been made in favour Ram and Gajraj respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, depriving him from getting compensation after due apportionment. He has therefore made the following prayers 1 to 4: i, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgment dated 29.4.2002 in L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs. 22,74,966.28 p...
Suman Lata and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Sonkar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC209
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. These are the two First Appeals from Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 directed against the judgment and award dated 7th August, 2001, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Faizabad, directing the appellant-Assurance Company to pay a sum ' of Rs. 16,09,000, as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment.2. F.A.F.O. No. 510 of 2001 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the legality and correctness of the award directing the payment of the aforesaid sum, whereas F.A.F.O. No. 509 of 2001 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.3. Both the appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and award and common questions of law and fact being involved, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.4. Briefly stated facts giving rise to these appeals are that Dr. Kamlesh...
Arvind Singh Adopted Son of Late Rukmani Wife of Late Ramker Singh Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1410
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order-dated 14.1.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the amendment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition is that one late Smt. Rukmani Devi was having a large number of agricultural properties. In order to protect the said property she created a Trust. This Trust was created after dedication of entire property to Lord Shiva and a temple of Lord Shiva was constructed from her own consideration. In order to give authenticity the petitioner was appointed as a trustee under the guardianship of his natural father Sri Ram Altar Singh. Respondent No. 2 who is a neighbour of late Smt. Rukmani Devi in order to grab the property deceived her by getting a sale-deed executed in his favour as well as got himself appointed as a trustee of the said Trust. On coming to know the aforesaid fact, Smt. Rukmani Devi filed suit No. 78 of 1974 requesting for alleg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »