Allahabad Court December 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.
Smt. Pooja Arya @ Tabassum Bano Wife of Santosh Kumar Daughter of Sri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All60; 2006(2)AWC1639; II(2006)DMC327
1. Heard Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. A Hindu boy, one of the petitioner has married with a Muslim girl (the other petitioner) which is created a furore in the local communities , which is ofcourse nothing unusual, in the prevailing social scenario. In eases like these/the Law Enforcement Authorities usually buy peace at the cost of the constitutional rights and privileges of citizens of this country. They pander to the sentiments of the illiterate masses which comprised the major part of our communities in order to maintain peace. They fail to realize that they are thereby rendering the constitutional rights of individuals nugatory and redundant.3. The real role of the Law Enforcing Agencies is to protect and preserve the rights of individuals guaranteed by our paramount parchment, and, to deal with an iron hand all those persons, who want to decimate and demolish those privileges.4. As usual, t...
Sri Sankatha Prasad Son of Sri Dularey Vs. the District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC520
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of argument no one appeared either on behalf of respondent No. 3 or on behalf of Shrimati Sukhrani widow of respondent No. 4 Raghubir Prasad, who was substituted at his place.2. Property in dispute is a shop of which petitioner is tenant. This writ petition arises out of release proceedings initiated by Chhotelal Pal, respondent No. 3 claiming himself to be landlord against tenant-petitioner, for eviction/release under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In the release application respondent No. 3 Chhotelal Pal pleaded his own bonafide need. Release application was registered as R.C. Case No. 76 of 1977. Prescribed authority / First additional Civil Judge, Kanpur allowed the release application on 17.7.1981. Against the said judgment and order petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 207 of 1981. Appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Kanpur on 11.5.1982. In the release application Raghubir Prasad was also imp leaded as applicant No. 2. However, need set up was ...
Dinesh Sharma Son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Vs. Zakir HussaIn College of E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC364
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was admitted in the B.Tech. Civil Engineering Course of the Aligarh Muslim University in the Session 2001-02 in Zakir Hussain College ofEngineering and Technology. Me successfully completed his first year examination, which consisted of two semesters. The case of the petitioner is that in the second year, because of illness, he could not earn the requisite number of credits, as was required under the University Ordinances. However, after having appeared in the two semester examinations of the second year, he was provisionally allowed to join the third year B.Tech. classes in the fifth semester. The results of the second year examination were published on 16.9.2003 and admit card was issued to the petitioner for the third year course. By order dated 10.11.2003, the petitioner was served with an order issued by respondent No. 1, holding that the petitioner and two others, namely, Aijaz Hussain Rizvi and Naved Agha, who were provisionally allowed to atten...
Naresh Kumar Son of Shri Atma Ram Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2709
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant.2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2002 and the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Meerut.3. An injunction suit was instituted against the U.P. Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) restraining them from interfering with the normal functioning of the plaintiffs power loom. An electricity connection No. 38749 was sanctioned for a load of 10.670 horse power. The plaintiff pleaded that the meter no. 5902 installed at the premises of the plaintiff was not tampered and the enforcement force of the Corporation had found the seal of the meter intact. The relief claimed was for injunction against the Corporation and to restrain the Corporation from recovery of amount of Rs. 1,19,497/- for the period commencing from 21.12...
Jhanjhi Ram Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1203
Vikram Nath, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the judgments and orders dated 18.8.1983, 16.10.1982, 16.4.1982 and 7.5.1981, passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, whereby the application under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short referred to as the C.P.C.), of the landlord respondent No. 3 and the application of the tenant petitioner under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were decided against the tenant and in favour of the landlord, the revision against the same was dismissed and thereafter, the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed on merits and the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short referred to as the 1887 Act) against the same was dismissed.2. The dispute relates to ground floor portion of House No. 227, Block No. 13 Govind Nagar, Kanpur, in which the petitioner is tenant on a monthl...
Rafi Khan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC517
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction for modifying the order dated 22.11.2005, passed by the Waqf Tribunal and also to restrain the opposite party No. 2 from interfering with the possession of the applicant and other beneficiaries of the Waqf No. 122, Aligarh and from alienating property and assets in any manner during pendency of the application for temporary injunction.3. Submission made by Sri J. J. Munir, counsel for the applicant is that one Mohd. Noor Khan created a waqf alul-aulad regarding his properties, which is in form of grove, shops and mosque besides some other properties located at Mohalla Atish Bazar, Aligarh. This Waqf was created for benefit of his family members and lineal descendants. The applicant claims himself to be lineal descendant of Wakhib, Mohd. Noor Khan. During his life time, he made scheme for settlement of the properties a...
Smt. Shakti Kumari Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1525
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition is yet another woeful tale of a hapless old lady of 90 years of age who, by virtue of her old age and infirm condition otherwise was unable to protect herself from the brazen act of lawlessness of the respondent No. 5, who forcibly grabbed her house which is the premises described in the writ petition and where after having found no shelter at the hands of the administration, had to or rather was compelled to seek shelter of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the protection of her rights and property.2. This incident of house grabbing is stated to have taken place on 6-7.3.2004. It is undisputed that the petitioner is alone and does not have any male member to support her. This Court taking cognizance of this petition, issued notice to the district administration as well as to the respondent No. 5 and in spite of several orders, appropriate response in the matter was not given as a result whereof, this Court repeatedly ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›