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.
Sant Lal Alias Pattar, S/O Sri Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. Through Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ690
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard and also perused the materials on record.2. This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at case crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302/201 Police Station Utraon, Allahabad. It :. said that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and merely on confessional statement of the co-accused his involvement in the aforesaid offence cannot be construed, more so when the complainant Chhotey LaL, his wife Shivkali, Mahendra Kumar alias Naate, the nephew of the deceased have'already filed their affidavits denying involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence. In order to facilitate the disposal of this petition, a brief resume of, the facts may be made. Complainant Chhotey Lal lodged a written report at police station Utraon district Allahabad at crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302/201 I.P.C, contending that his son Kallu (how deceased) and Sri Suresh Pasi were doing mazdoori and there were some differences in between them on ...
Mathura Das Vs. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC124
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. The only point involved in this writ petition is as to whether a suit filed by landlord owner against tenant for eviction from tenanted accommodation as well as adjoining accommodation regarding which the allegation of owner landlord is that tenant has encroached upon the said property is maintainable before civil court or not. The contention of learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that suit for eviction in respect of tenanted portion is maintainable only before J.S.C.C.Landlord owner respondent No. 3 Madan Mohan since deceased and survived by legal representatives has filed O.S. No. 31 of 1982 against tenant petitioner before Munsif, Mathura. In the plaint it has been alleged that defendant is tenant of two kothas and one hall and he has illegally encroached upon the adjoining room also. The defendant raised the plea that suit in respect of tenanted property was not maintainable before regular civil court. The trial court through order dated 30.4.1984 reje...
Sri Ram Ahuja Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC451
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the allottee. Building in dispute was declared vacant on 3.3.1983 on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter it was allotted to the petitioner on 9.5.1983. Possession was also delivered to the petitioner through Police force on 3.6.1983.2. Petitioner had alleged that one Jagdish Lal was the tenant of the premises in dispute who had vacated the same. Notice issued to the landlord was served upon one Bhaskaran who was alleged by the petitioner to be caretaker of the building in dispute on behalf of landlady respondent No. 3 Smt. Nand Rani.3. Landlady respondent No. 3 on 10.6.1983 filed an application before R.C. and E.O./Local Magistrate, Hardwar, district Saharanpur for review of the allotment order which was registered as Case No. 56 of 1983. R.C. and E.O. on 21.8.1984, allowed the review application of the landlady holding that Jagdish Lal was never the tenant of the house in dispute and that Bhaskaran was not the caretaker of...
Heera Lal Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC455
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Lalta Prasad and Babu Singh respectively on the ground of bona fide need, under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Each tenant is independent tenant of one room. At the time of filing the release application landlord was residing in a room in between the two rooms in tenancy occupation of each of the two tenants. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 61 of 1983 on the file of Prescribed Authority/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The release application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 6.4.1985 allowed the release application only under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act and rejected the same under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act by holding that building was in dilapidated condition but landlord did not bona fidely requi...
Gopal Krishna Pandey and ors. Vs. Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All99
ORDERDevi Prasad Singh, J.1. List revisedNon present for the respondents.This is a part-heard writ petition. Already, parties' counsel were heard at length and the case was adjourned granting time to petitioners' counsel to file a Supplementary Affidavit alongwith the true typed copy of order-sheet dated 27th of February, 1987 and the same was filed long back, but no objection has been filed by the respondents, hence I proceed to decide the writ petition finally after hearing petitioners' counsel as well as arguments advanced by the respondents' counsel earlier.2. The plaintiffs-petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where an application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial court as well as Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 22nd of April, 1987 and 27th of February, 1988 respectively. The brief matrix of the case is that petitioners have filed a Regular Suit No. 12...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›