Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3720
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.8.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.2. The dispute relates to khata No. 7 situate in village Chak Adhiya district Varanasi which was recorded as Mafi Dakhalikari (rent-free grantee) of one Sudin. The undisputed pedigree of Sudin is as under:Sudin=Lakhpati/-------------------------------------/ /Baij Nath Ram Adhar/ = Smt. Rajesra/ /Deo Nath ............................................................./ / / / /Bikrama Sant Kumar Basant Kumar Babu Nandan Mahadeo3. After death of Sudin, Baij Nath father of petitioner No. 1 executed sale deed of share in the land in dispute in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Respondent No. 9 also executed sale deed of the remaining half on his behalf as well as on behalf respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as their guardian, since they were minor at that time in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. On the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2082
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and Counsels agree that it may be disposed off finally.2. Janta Junior High School, Anapur, Dashrathpur in district Jaunpur is a duly registered society. It runs an Intermediate College in the name and style of Dwarika Prasad Higher Secondary School, Jaunpur. The Society and the Institution have a common committee of management whose term, according to the scheme of administration, is three years. The last undisputed elections were held on 8.8.1993 wherein Mata Prasad and Deotadeen Pandey were elected as President and Manager. The term of the aforesaid committee of management was to expire on 7.9.1996, therefore, the petitioner held the elections on 1.9.1996 wherein petitioner No. 2 Sabhajeet Pandey was elected as Manager and Raj Narain Mishra as President. While in another election held on 1.9.1999 Dewta Din was elected as Manager. The papers having been submitted by both the committees to the District Inspector of Schools, he referred the rival...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)11VST912(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The question involved in the present revision is whether sales tax on the sale of eucalyptus trees by the applicant who is neither the owner of any forest nor an importer of any wood /timber can be levied in view of the notification No. 6071 dated 30th September, 1983.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87. The applicant, a private limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is registered under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of cement pipes as well as sale of jute bags etc. The sale of cement pipes, jute bags etc. are not in dispute in the present revision as its account books have been accepted. The Assessing Officer imposed sales tax to the tune of Rs. 21,876/- on the sale of trees made by the applicant for a sum of Rs. 1,82,300/-, which is the subject matter of the present revision. All the three authorities have upheld the levy of sales tax on the sale of trees made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3246
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under :'That the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute of which the respondent is the landlord. The landlord is occupying the first floor portion consisting of two rooms one latrine and kitchen etc. The building in which the accommodation in dispute is situated, is partitioned between the landlord and his brother and after partition, half portion fell into the share of the landlord. Thus, the respondent-landlord who is residing on the entire first floor portion measuring area of 450 sq. ft. is the owner of another half portion which has fallen in the share of the brother, the application has been filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3397
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the orders dated 1.2.2005 and 14.1.2004 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively.2. The brief facts are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent from the petitioner being S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 on the ground that the petitioner has not paid any rent after January, 1993, therefore, the petitioner is defaulter and is liable for eviction. The respondent-landlord determined the tenancy of the petitioner by means of registered notice dated 4th November, 1996. The petitioner tenant contested the aforesaid suit on the ground that he is not the defaulter and further that respondent, Baij Nath is not the sole landlord but the said house is owned by Sri Baij Nath and his brother Jagannath jointly. Further contention of the petitioner-tenant is that by virtue of agreement of tenancy dated 31st March, 1992 two rooms etc. on the ground floor was given on monthly ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3398
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-landlord who filed a suit before the Judge of Small Cause Court on the ground that the defendant is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute and according to the plaint allegation the construction of the building was completed in the year, 1985. The same was let out to the defendant-tenant in the year, 1986 and since the defendant has committed default in payment of agreed rent, therefore, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit being Suit No. 62 of 1997 for the ejectment of the defendant-tenant and arrears of rent and damages after terminating the tenancy by the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant-tenant has contested the aforesaid suit and filed written statement denying the plaint allegation firstly that the land over which the building is constructed, is agricultural land to which the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are applicable and since the land occupied by the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3511
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Purshottam Das, filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar dated 9th October, 2003, whereby a vacancy has been declared in the accommodation in dispute Under Section 12 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to two rooms set on the first floor of House No. 110/194, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.2. The landlord filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 29th July, 2003 to the effect that one Shobh Raj was tenant of the accommodation in dispute on the monthly rent of Rs. 85 of which applicants Virendra Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Raj Kumar are the owners and landlords. Sri Shobh Raj died and the tenancy was inherited by his widow, Smt. Krishna Devi, who also died on 4.1.2003. It was also stated in the said application that Krishna Devi, deceased, entered into agreement with the erstwhile owner Rajesh Chandra Saxena on 14....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC761
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioners who are the tenant of the accommodation in question challenge the orders dated 6.4.1998 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the trial court and the order passed by the revisional court dated 20.11.2004 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under :That the landlord-plaintiff after serving the notice determining the tenancy of the petitioners filed a suit being Suit No. 105 of 1984 for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground firstly that the petitioners are in arrears of rent and has not paid the same in spite of notice being served on him and secondly that the petitioners have made structural alteration in the accommodation in dispute which has diminished its value and utility. The trial court after exchange of the pleadings and evidence on record, by the Judgment and order dated 26.3.1990, decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred a revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC765
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition by the petitioner-tenant challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority dated 27th February, 2004 and that of appellate authority dated 21st April, 2004, under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord sometimes in the year 1983 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 136 of 1983 on the ground that the landlord requires the shop in dispute for his bona fide requirement as being landlady she does not have any source of income and her husband also is doing nothing. She proposed to start business of sewain and tea from the shop in dispute. The aforesaid application filed by the erstwhile landlord which was contested by the petitioner-tenant up to this Court when a Writ Petition No. 20278 of 1988 was filed which has been decided by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3859A; (2006)ILLJ375All
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Tarun Verma, who has accepted notice vide endorsement on the petition, dated 5.2.2004.2. All the respondents are represented. This petition can be decided without calling for the counter and rejoinder affidavits. We decide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, finally, at the admission' stage itself, as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2( 1), second proviso Rules of the Court, 1952.3. Petitioner, Sunder was serving as casual labour with temporary status in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. He was served with a memorandum of charge sheet on 06.09.1989 proposing major penalty on the charge of unauthorized absence. Petitioner claimed that he was never served with the charge sheet. The Departmental inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 17.04.1990 before Disciplinary Authority which considered it and passed fo...
Tag this Judgment!