Allahabad Court September 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.
Shiv Ganesh and Vs. State of U.P.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All412
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners, Sri Sanjai Goswami, Learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Awadhesh Singh holding brief of Sri R.C. Gupta appearing for the allottees seeking impleadment.2. By means of this application the applicants - petitioners have sought a review of the judgment of this court dated 9.4.2002 dismissing the writ petition. The facts in short are that tenure holder Sri Brij Bhushan Lal ( father of the petitioner no.l and 2 and grand father of petitioner no. 3) was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1974 proposing to declare an area of 12.90 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The said notice was contested by the tenure holder by filing objection which was registered as case no. 75 of 1974. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10.12.1974 confirmed the notice and declared 12.9...
Haji Shahid Akhlakh S/O Late Haji Mohd. Akhlakh Vs. State of U.P. Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC200
Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath, JJ.1. This case was taken up on a mention being made from the respondents' side at 12.00 noon today. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated at that time, that the matter would be argued by Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, who was busy in another case in another court-room. We, therefore, told both sides that we would take up the matter at 3 :15 p.m.2. When the matter was taken up at 3 :15 p.m., neither Sri Anoop Trivedi nor Sri Shashi Nandan were present. In the circumstances, we heard learned counsel for the respondents. However, we did not dictate the order immediately and continued to wait for the learned counsel for the petitioner till 3 : ', 40 p.m., hearing other cases in the meantime. At 3 : 40 p.m. Sri Anoop Trivedi appeared and asked for adjournment for the day.3. Because, there was an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner which, due to the reasons given below, is wholly undeserved and because the...
Prem Chand Tiwari Son of Late Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR760]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk Grade III on 19.9.1964 in the office of the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Mirzapur, District Mirzapur (respondent No. 2). Me retired from service on 31.12.2000 at the age of 58 years. It is alleged that in pursuance of a letter of Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Mirzapur, District Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) dated 29.12.2000 the petitioner handed over charge of his office on 31.12.2000 to the concerning person, but despite several representations his monthly pension and other retiral benefits have not been paid.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after retirement the petitioner is entitled to monthly pension and other retiral benefits under the U.P. Zila Parishad Employees Retirement Benefits (Vth Amendment) Rules, 1981 but the same are not being paid to him.3. Retiral benefits are granted to a retired employee to enable him/her to subsist and non-payment of the same is hit by Article...
Rajeev Kumar Singh Son of Shri Gauri Shanker Singh Vs. State of U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ248
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra in Criminal Revisioin No. 89 of 2004, Gulab Rai v. State and Ors., under Sections 147, 323, 435, 427, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra whereby the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been set aside.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that an incident took place on 28.9.2004 within the college campus while the meeting of the members of Committee of Management of Jang Bahadur Inter College, Shahganj, Sonebhadra was continuing. One of the teachers was sitting on hunger strike and two other teachers instigated the students, as a result, the vehicle of the Manager and other members were set at fire. A first information report was lodged by the Principal of the institution on the same day at 12.30 P.M. whic...
Arun Kumar S/O Sri Jai Prakash Vs. Smt. Indra W/O Sri Arun Kumar, D/O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All406; 2006(1)AWC290
R.K. Rastogi,J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1996 passed by Sri S.K. Bhatt, then learned Judge, Family Court, Meerut in original suit No. 492 of 1989, Arun Kumar v. Smt. Indira. It may be mentioned here that F.A. No. 863 of 2003 was originally registered as defective F.A. 721 of 1996 and after removal of defects regular F.A. No. 863 of 2003 was allotted to it. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment in same suit, we heard both of them together and now we are deciding them vide a common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to both these appeals are that the plaintiff Arun Kumar had filed original suit No. 492 of 1989 in the court of the Civil Judge, Meerut against the defendant, Smt. Indira under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that their marriage had taken place at Meerut on 29.1.1988 according to Hindu rites. Thereafter Smt. Indira came to the house of the plaintiff Arun Kumar to reside with him. T...
Smt. Fahmida Shoeb Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC127
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner-landlord aggrieved by an order passed by the prescribed authority dated 17.8.2001, whereby an application Paper No. 118Ka filed by the respondent for cross-examination of the witnesses, was allowed has approached this Court by means of this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order allowing cross-examination is an order without any reason and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. Prescribed Authority (Munsif) Basti and Anr. 1989 (1) ARC 407, also, this order is erroneous. This Court after considering the several authorities in this regard has held as under :14. The consistent view of this Court, consequently, is that the normal mode of proceeding in a case under the Act is to receive evidence on affidavits from both the parties and to decide the case on the basis of the said affidavits. It is only in a very rare case where the Court thinks fit necessary in the interest of justice cross-examine ...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Sagir Khan and Zahir Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: (2007)9VST560(All)
Rajesh Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U. P Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 18, 2005, by which, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the opposite party and directed the Check-post Officer to issue transit pass.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On July 30, 2005 driver of Vehicle No. U.P.-22/3937 applied for transit pass in respect of 225 bags of old mix scrap consisting of 54 bags brass scrap, 100 bags armature scrap, 3 bags radiator scrap, 39 bags mozak scrap, 29 bags steel M. S. scrap at Tinsukhiya check-post. The transit pass was applied for movement of goods through State of U. P. to Delhi. At the time of applying the transit pass, a bill/challan of M/s. Shiva Enterprises, Belsar Nalawadi, Assam, was filed which was issued in favour of M/s. Pawan Metal Trading Company, 9662, Sadar Bazar, Delhi for 225 bags of scrap. The seizure record shows that a copy of for...
Raj Bahadur S/O Banku and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Six) Alld. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC173
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein are the orders dated 29.9.2004 and 7.12.2004 passed by trial court and Revisional Court respectively whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed.2. The dispute in the instant petition revolves round the Bhumidhar land of Dharamraj situated in village Unao Pargana Atharwan Tahsil Manjhanpur District Kaushambhi. Dileep Kumar son of Dharamraj arrayed as respondent no.3 in the instant petition instituted a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act with the allegations that the landed property has been inherited by him, he being the only son of Dharamraj and that the defendants got their names mutated in the revenue record claiming themselves to be the successors of Dharamraj by setting up an unregistered Will. It is further alleged that at the relevant time, the plaintiff was minor and the defendants by manufacturing an unregistered will, got their names mutated in the revenue records. It was fur...
Smt. Ram Devi Wife of Ghanshyam Vs. Director Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pusht ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC168
1. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 1.5.1999 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pustahar holding the petitioner not entitled for promotion on the post of Mukhya Sewika.3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for. deciding this appeal are;4. The petitioner was engaged as Angan Bari Karyakatri on 2.6.1980. The petitioner since her engagement as Angan Bari Karyakatri continued to work and discharged her duties. The appellant applied for being considered for promotion on the post of Mukhya Sewika. The appellant was called to appear before the Selection Committee vide letter dated 7.8.1998, The appellant appeared before the selection committee and was considered. The result of promotion was declared in which list the name of the appellant ...
Smt. Ayasha Khatun Wife of Abdul Wahid Vs. State of U.P. Through Secre ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC121
S.N. Srivastava. J. 1. Impugned herein is the order dated 4.7.2005 passed by Collector/District Deputy Director Consolidation, Fatehpur passed in exercise of power under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereby the authority concerned set aside the order dated 28.5.1998 passed in favour of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that transfer in favour of the petitioner was sans permission of the Collector as envisaged in Section 156 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.2. It would transpire from the record that the petitioner is a transferee who has purchased the land in question by means of sale deed dated 28.2.1997 from Ramdhani, a member of scheduled caste and on the basis of the same the Consolidation officer passed order dated 28.5.1998 mutating the name of transferee. The attention of the Collector/District Deputy Director Consolidation was drawn to this aspect who by means of orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »