Allahabad Court August 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.
Dwarika Nath Soni Vs. Bhagwan Dass Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC590
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the orders dated 15th January, 2002 and 18th October, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'4' and '8' to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 filed by the landlord-respondent has been allowed. Thus, this writ petition.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in dispute, which is situated on the first floor of the building in dispute and the respondent is the landlord of the aforesaid shop...
Smt. Surekha Daughter of Sri Satyapal and Vs. Jitendra Alias Deshpal S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC430
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 5.10.1998 passed by Sri Chandrabhan, Judge Family Court, Meerut in matrimonial suit No. 495 of 1996, Jitendra alias Deshpal v. Smt. Surekha and Anr., decreeing the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants appellants under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that the marriage of respondent Jitendra alias Deshpal had taken place with defendant appellant No. 1 Surekha on 17.6.1995 according to Hindu religion i:n presence of a large number of 'persons. Photographs of the marriage ceremony were also taken. Thereafter Smt. Surekha went to the plaintiffs house at village Sarurpur Kalan and resided with him for three to four days, thereafter; she went back to her patents' house when her brother came for her Vida. There after she did not come to the plaintiff's house inspite of his r...
Urmila Chaurasia Wife of Harish Chandra Chaurasia Vs. the State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ESC2548
A.P. Sahi, J.1. These writ petitions relate to the selection, appointment and continuance or refusal to do so in respect of the petitioners as 'Shiksha Mitra' who are Teachers in primary schools under a scheme known as 'Shiksha Mitra Yojna'. 2. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State look a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions on the strength of 2 decisions of this Court one by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15908 of 2003 decided on 15.4.2003 and the other in Special Appeal No. 547 of 2004 (Smt. Mala Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 17.5.2004. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and that in Special Appeal referred to herein above are quoted herein below:Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15908 of 2003Pradeep Kumar v. Adhyaksh, Gram Shiksha Samiti and Ors. 'Heard Sri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, S...
Ram Bhajan Son of Tirath, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Collector ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC627
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioners, who were seasonal collection amins, have challenged the order dated 30.6.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and have prayed for quashing of the same] with a further direction to the said respondent to appoint the petitioners against the permanent posts of regular collection amins in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules 1974. The challenge is on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of Rule 1974 as amended in the year 1992 referred to herein above and that there is no basis or evidence to show that the petitioners were provided sufficient work so as to satisfy the position laid down under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. It has further been urged that the actions of the respondent are arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the persons junior to the petitioners have been offered appointment as collection amins whereas the petitio...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through It's duly Constituted Power o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ508; 2006(1)AWC353
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 17.2.1997 passed by Sri Kartar Singh, then Vth Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 293 of 1993, Shiv Kumar Goel v.. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. Since both these appeals have arisen against a common order in the aforesaid claim petition, they have been heard together by us, and now we are deciding them by a common judgment.2. The facts relevant for disposal of both these appeals are that Shiv Kumar Goel, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals, filed the aforesaid claim petition in the court of Motor Accident Claims- Tribunal/District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with these allegations that on 6.4.1993 he was going from Budhana to Muzaffarnagar in Bus No. UP-12A 3747 owned by Ajab Singh, Opposite Party No. 4. It was being driven by its driver Ram Pal, Opposite Party No. 5. He was sitting on a seat near right side window in the midd...
Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs. Ivth Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC586
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment and orders dated 17.9.1984 and 30.9.1982, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and the Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, whereby the suit of the respondent No. 3 Devendra Bahadur Srivastava for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioners has been decreed and the revision of the tenant petitioner against the same has been dismissed.2. The dispute relates to residential portion in the tenancy of the petitioners situate at 414 Ismailpur, Gorakhpur which is owned by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 in the upper northeast portion of the said building (hereinafter referred to as the premises in dispute). The petitioner committed default in payment of rent from March, 1978, despite request by the respondent No. 3. As the arrears were not paid, the respondent No. 3 gave notice dated 22.9.1979 demanding the arrears and to vacate the pr...
Bhudeo Gupta Vs. Addl. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC340
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority and appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act').2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:That the petitioner who is admittedly the tenant of the shop in dispute contested the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act whereby the respondent-landlord prays for the release of the shop in dispute for his bona fide personal requirement with the allegation that the landlord is a practising advocate and he does not have any place where he could consult his clients therefore, the shop in dispute which is most suitable place for establishing the chamber, may be released in his favour. The landlord further submitted that in fact the petitioner tenant does not require the shop in dispute inasmuch as he has...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheo Kumar Goel and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC83
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 17th February, 1997 passed by Sri Kartar Singh, the then Vth Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in motor accident claims petition No. 293 of 1993, Shiv Kumar Gael v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. Since both these appeals have arisen against a common order in the aforesaid claim petition, they have been heard together by us, and now we are deciding them by a common judgment.2. The facts relevant for disposal of both these appeals are that Shiv Kumar Goel, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals, filed the aforesaid claim petition in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with these allegations that on 6th April, 1993 he was going from Budhana to Muzaffarnagar in bus No. UP-12-A-3747 owned by Ajab Singh, opposite party No. 4. It was being driven by its driver Ram Pal, opposite party No. 5. He was sitting on a seat near right si...
Meharwan Son of Rahman Vs. the Collector,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC509
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Orders impugned herein having been passed on similar lines and proceedings in all the petitions having genesis in Section 122 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, all the six petitions were knit together to be heard and decided by a composite orders. In all these cases, notices were issued to the respective petitioners in form 49 Ka of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the quintessence of which is that the petitioners were in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha property and they had wrongly constructed residential houses on a part of the same and further that they were liable to be evicted as well as to pay damages to the extent indicated in the orders. Objections were filed by each of the petitioners. By order-dated 28.6.2004, the Tahsildar passed an order for eviction of the petitioners from the land in question together with direction to pay damages. Revision preferred against the said order ended up in dismissal vide order of the District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat.2. The lea...
Umesh Chand, Vs. Sub-divisional Officer,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC435
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for impleadment of State of U.P. through Secretary, Revenue Department U.P. Lucknow as Opp.: Party No. 4. The prayer made by the learned counsel does commend to me for acceptance and the learned counsel is oermitted to implead the party accordingly.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the Standing Counsel. I have also been taken through the materials on record.3. Procrastination of Restoration application for inordinately long time has been the causative factor for Institution of this writ petition in this Court.4. The facts in the background are that initially, a suit was instituted by the Forest Department under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. &.L.R. Act The journey of the suit came to an abrupt end with an esc-parte decree passed against the petitioners by means of judgment/order dated 29* August 2001. A restoration application came to be preferred by the petitioners on 20th October 2001 and it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »