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.
Smt. Lajjawati Daughter of Late Garibe Wife of Santosh Kumar and Smt. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC909
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgments dated 15th September, 2000 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 590 of 99-2000 and 14th July, 2000 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No. 33/99 arising out of Suit No. 24 of 1998 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners are daughters of Garibe, who died 20 years back from the date of filing of the Suit by the Plaintiffs (Petitioners herein). After about 20 years of the death of Garibe, plaintiffs filed the Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration of their Bhumidhari rights of land in dispute, i.e., Plot No. 801 area 157 hectare and Plot No. 852 area 1.486 hectare, total area 1.643 hectare situated in Village Mahuagaon, Teshil, Pargana and District Kanpur on the ground that they inherited property of Garibe after his death. Name of Harish Chandra-Defendant in the s...
Manu Pratap Singh Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC56
V.C. Misra, J.1. Notices were issued as per the office report dated 1st March, 2004. Notices meant for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by RPAD has not returned back, neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has also returned back. The services of notice of respondents 2 and 3 are deemed sufficient in terms of the High Court Rules. Respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. is represented through Shri Nipendra Mishra, Advocate. Newly added respondent No. 4 is represented through Shri Atul Dayal. No counter-affidavit or objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in whose favour an ex parte order had been passed. Counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the other respondents. However, vide order dated 27th January, 2005 Mr. Nipendra Mishra learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. was directed to file an affidavit of the Branch Manager, Civil Lines Branch, Indira Bhawan, Allahabad within ten days categorically stating therein on t...
Darshan Lal Vs. A.D.J./Fast Track Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC122
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order dated 18th August, 2001, passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlady, approached the revisional court by means of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the revisional court by order dated 20th December, 2004 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant, now petitioner approach this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'8' and '9', respectively to the writ petition.2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this petition, filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the tenant is occupying the accommodation under tenancy on monthly r...
Om Prakash Vs. A.D.J./Fast Track Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC126
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order dated 18th August, 2001, passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlady, approached the revisional court by means of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the revisional court by order dated 20th December, 2004 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'8' and '9', respectively to the writ petition.2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this petition, filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the tenant is occupying the accommodation under tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 30...
Daya Shankar, Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC476
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed off under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. This writ petition is directed against an appellate order dated 26.9.2001 setting aside the order of the trial court holding that the suit was not maintainable.4. That the plaintiff respondent second set filed suit No. 215 of 1991 for cancellation of an attachment order dated 19.3.1988, the auction sale dated 26.3.1990 and its confirmation dated 30.3.1991. Further relief for mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 from interfering in their possession over the suit property has also been sought.5. Inter-alia allegations in the suit were that the plots of schedule No. 1 belonged to Vijai, defendant No. 13 while the plots of schedule No. 2 were Bhumidhari of Bhagwali Prasad, defendant No. 10 and the plots mentioned in schedule No. 3 were the Bhumidhari of Suresh Kumar, plaintiff No. 1, Bhagw...
Ram Kishan Agarwal Son of Shri Jayanti Prasad Agarwal, Vs. Mathura Vri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All27; 2006(1)AWC277
Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath, JJ.1. We have heard Sri P.C.Jain Advocate for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri D.S. Chauhan for the Mathura Vrindawan Development Authority (referred hereafter as MVDA) at length. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the MVDA.2. The petitioners are small colonizers. On 2.7.2005 they submitted a lay out plan to the MVDA for sanction under Section s 14 & 15 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973. The plan was kept pending without any orders till 3.9.2005 when an order was passed by the MVDA refusing to sanction the plan on one solitary ground. That order was disclosed for the first time through the counter affidavit. A copy of that order has been enclosed as second annexure to the short counter affidavit of the MVDA.3. This writ petition was filed originally seeking a direction to the MVDA to take a decision in respect of the plan submitted by the petitioners. Upon disclosure of the said order dated 3-9-2...
State of U.P. Vs. Dhakan S/O Janji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4206
M.C. Jain, J.1. Six accused respondents, namely, Dhakan, Bechey Lal, Jagdish, Bahoran, Omkar and Ulfat were tried before VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly for the offence of rioting, attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt to three persons, namely, Karan Singh, Sipattar Singh and Dharmapal Singh. They came to be acquitted by judgement dated 29.9.1980 impugned in this appeal from the side of the State. Out of them, Dhakan and Ulfat died during the pendency of appeal and the same abated under order dated 28.11.2003. Jagdish and Bechey Lal are the sons of Dhakan whereas Bahoran and Omkar are his nephews and Ulfat is his cousin brother.2. We have heard Miss Usha Kiran, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State and Sri Surepdra Pal Singh for the accused Bechey Lal, Bahoran and Omkar. Jagdish absconded and Sri R.C. Upadhyaya was appointed amicus curiae for him under order dated 7.7.2005. Sri Upadhyaya has been heard for him.3. The prosecution case, in broad essentials, was that t...
Shesh Bahadur Singh Son of Sri Suraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC490
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful working of the petitioner in Janta Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Athilapura Rasra, Ballia on the post of Head Master.2. The brief facts of the case are that janta Vidyalaya, Athilapura, Ballia was a recognized institution. It was upgraded in 2001 and is known as Janta Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Athilapura Rasra, Ballia. It is recognized school and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 are applicable to the institution.3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.7.1977. He claims that he was promoted as Head Master of the Junior High School in 1990. A true copy of the order of promotion, on which he has based his claim, dated 25.7.1990 (appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is as under :- vkns'k la fnukad 25-7-90Jh 'ks'k cgknqj flag] lavTUrk fo/kky;] vfBykiqjk]VfByk] cfy;k vkidhfu;qfDr iz/kkuk/...
Devyani Beverages Ltd. Through Its Factory Manager Sri S.V. Singh Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR426]
Vineet Saran, J.1. A dispute between the respondent No. 3-Devendra Singh (workman) and the petitioner M/s Devyani Beverages Limited (employer) was referred to the Labour Court which was to the effect that whether the termination of the workman from the post of Checker by order dated 10.12.1997 was in accordance with law or not; and if not, to what relief would the workman be entitled to. Proceedings before the Labour Court had commenced and a perusal of the order-sheet (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) show that on service of notice to the employer (petitioner), a written statement was filed by them on 1.10.1999; which was taken on record. Since the workman did not appear, by the same order, after taking service of notice on the workman to be sufficient, it was directed that the right of the workman to file his written statement was forfeited. Thereafter, since there was no Presiding Officer posted in the Labour Court for more than two years, the matter was adjourned from time to time....
Hoti Lal and ors. Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC690
Vineet Saran, J.1. The short question to be determined by this Court in this writ petition is as to whether the trial court as well as revisional court were Justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners for taking certain additional documents on record after 18 years of the filing of the written statement and framing of issues ; and after the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed.2. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 3 Smt. Kesar Sharma, who is the owner of the property in dispute, filed Suit No. 202 of 1983 against one Jagan Lal (who was the tenant of the property in question) for arrears of rent and eviction from the property in question. The said Jagan Lal contested the suit and filed his written statement on 21.5.1985. The issues had already been framed for the determination of the Court. During the pendency of the case, in August, 1983, said Jagan Lal expired and the names of the petitioners were substituted in his place. The evidence of the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »