Allahabad Court May 2005 Judgments

Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Sukarma Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2005All329; 2005(4)AWC3440

ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24-3-2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura, in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2005 (Sukarma Developers Private Limited v. Brij Pal Sharma).3. The sole ground of challenge is, that Misc. Appeal filed by the contesting respondents, against the order dated 18-2-2005, by the executing Court while deciding the application under Order 21, Rule 97, was not maintainable. Therefore, the entire proceedings before the Additional District Judge, Mathura, in Misc. Appeals are rendered without jurisdiction.4. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of contesting respondents, regarding the maintainability of the present application. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the appeal was allowed by the Civil Judge (Se...

Swaraj Kumar Vs. Arvind Kumar

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3387

Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act').2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under :'The respondent-landlord filed an application for the release of the accommodation in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act with the allegation that his family consists of himself, his wife and two sons who are unemployed and are to be engaged in business. The tenant can take some other accommodation. The petitioner contested the application by filing his written statement. The stand taken by the petitioner-tenant are that Arvind Kumar grandson of owner of the house in dispute Devi Saran has been collecting the rent on behalf of Devi Saran. Devi Saran, owner of the property in dispute, has large number of properties. Even with regard to Arvind Kumar who is collecting rent and may be covered within the ...

Yogendra Kumar Virendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3133

Amitava Lala, J.1. The writ petitioners made this petition for the purpose of quashing of the Government order dated 4.1.2001 so far as it relates to condition No. 1, order dated 6.9.2000 and order dated 13.5.2000. They have further prayed that respondents and their subordinates be directed not to interfere with the right of the petitioners to transport High Speed Diesel Oil from retail outlet to their business premises by utilizing services of the oil tankers as per Form IX prescribed under the Petroleum Rules, 1976. Conditions under Form IX are as follows :(i) Transportation of High Speed Diesel Oil through a tanker holding a licence in Form IX under the Petroleum Rules, is very safe as these licences are issued only after, certificates are issued by the Agni Shaman Adhikari (i.e., Fire Prevention Officer).(ii) Transportation price is lesser in case of transportation by these tankers as compared to that of tractor trolleys.(in) Contents of the tankers are insured where as in case of ...

P.D. Tandon Vs. Military Estate Officer and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3514

B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, P. D. Tandon, and pertain to the same property covered by Survey No. 143 situate in Old Cantonment, Allahabad. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13353 of 1992 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 and the writ petition was dismissed while Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002 was decided and allowed by another Division Bench of this Court vide judgment an order dated 5.3.2003. The aforesaid judgments and orders of this Court were questioned by way of Civil Appeal No. 7284 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 6637 of 2003, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 accepted both the appeals. Orders under appeals were set aside and the petitions were remanded to the High Court for fresh decision by the same Bench. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the direction issued by the Hon'ble...

State of U.P. Vs. Mahtab Singh, S/O Shanker Singh and Jaipal Singh, So ... Overruled

Court: Allahabad

M.C. Jain, J.1. Mahtab Singh and his son Jai Pal Singh were tried before IV Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad who has recorded their acquittal through judgement dated 20.12.2000 in question. The charge against both of them was of Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Mahtab Singh was also charged under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.2. The murder of one Ganga Singh took place in this incident which occurred on 28.9.1990 at about 9.00 P.M. in Mohalla Gandhi Nagar in the town of Kampil, Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad. The report was lodged the same day at 9.55 P.M. by an eyewitness Vinod brother of the deceased. The deceased was returning after taking bin from the betel shop of Rajpher. Mahtab Singh and his son Jai Pal Singh were in the way. The deceased Ganga Singh demanded his outstanding dues from Mahtab Singh. Instead of paying the same, he started hurling abuses. When Ganga Singh objected to it, he (Mahtab Singh) commanded his son Jai Pal Singh to catch hold of Ganga S...

Pankaj Son of Charan Singh and Neeraj Son of Raj Singh Vs. State of U. ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3683

Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard earned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat declining to entertain an application moved on behalf of the applicants claiming to be a juvenile and is entitled for protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Act). A copy of the application has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, stating therein that the two sessions trial were amalgamated and S.T. No. 425 of 2003 is the leading case. The applicants Pankaj and Neeraj claimed to be minor and in the circumstances, a separate trial was liable to be conducted. It was stated in the application that they were students at the time of occurrence. The date of birth of the applicant Pankaj son off Sri Charan Singh Saroha is 27.3.1986 according to High School Certificate and the applicant No. 2 set of Sri R...

Mangal Dev Son of Ram Roop and Shashi Dewivedi Wife of Mangal Dev Vs. ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3127; 2005(3)ESC1742

B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.04.2005(Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the names of the petitioners as well as their two sons; and one daughter have been deleted from the provisional voter list: prepared for the purpose of forthcoming Panchayat Raj elections. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners, claim to be resident of village Bhanjanpur, Gram: Panchayat Payagpur Ramgarhwa, Block Manda, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad. There, they have a, house, immovable properties and their family members reside therein. Earlier names of the petitioners as well as their children existed in the voter list and they had exercised the right to vote in the last elections for the Parliaments well as the State Assembly. Their names appeared in the voter list prepared for Gram Panchayat election also. The elector roll was published for the purposes of, holding the elections of Gram Panchayat on 01...

Sukh Nandan Son of Late Mahadeo and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3407

S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein is the order-dated 23.2.2005 whereby the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order of Addl. Commissioner dated 25.10.2004 attended with direction to the trial court to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and decide the suit on merits.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order mainly on the ground that some of the plaintiff were represented as Caveators while other plaintiffs were not represented; that judgment was rendered without having trial court record and without issuing notices to all the plaintiffs and ultimately, it is canvassed that the Board of Revenue erred in law in allowing revision, setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner while affirming the order of trial court dated 13.1.2003.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.4. The case has got a chequered history. The litigation in the case erupted with the institution of su...

Chairman-cum-managing Director, Fertilizer Corporation of India Limite ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1547

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions and they are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 36892 of 2004 is treated as leading case.2. Writ petition No. 36892 of 20044 has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1- Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Kanpur and notice dated 29.12.2003 for payment of gratuity under Rule 17 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules issued by the Controlling authority/the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Allahabad- respondent No. 2.BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited is a multi-unit Public Sector Undertaking. Of its 5 units, one is situate at Gorakhpur. An advertisement No. 35/89 was published in newspaper by the petitioners- the Fertilizer Corporatio...

Suraksha Rani Chopra Wife of Mahendra Lal Chopra and Yogesh Kumar Chop ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3372

B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 27.4.2005 (Annex. 21); earlier similar notice dated 18.10.2003 (Annex. 20); and further FOR direction to decide the applications dated 31.3.2000 and 1.5.2000 (Annex. 3 and 4) of the petitioners, for compounding the construction raised in contravention of the Sanction Plan and for permitting change of user of the property in dispute.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased Property No. II/B-1, Nehru Nagar, District Ghaziabad, measuring 572.40 sq. mtrs. vide Registered Sale Deed dated 7.10.1983. Petitioners applied for sanction of the Plan for construction over the said land, and it was sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.11.1983 for residential purpose. Petitioners raised constructions to a certain extent in addition to and in contravention of the Plan sanctione...