Allahabad Court January 2006 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.
Ram NaraIn Son of Sri Sarjoo Prasad Vs. District Magistrate, Settlemen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2349
Krishna Murari, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raising common question of facts and law and are being decided together by a common judgment.2. Heard Sri P.R. Maurya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions and Sri N.N. Verma holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh appearing for the Gaon Sabha.3. Challenge in these petitions has been made to the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sahasaon district Allahabad rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Rule 109A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (for short 'the Rule') for mutation of his name.4. It has been contended that the impugned orders have been passed behind the back without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.5. The facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 52(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 109A of the Rules framed thereunder in the year 2003 for mutat...
Smt. Vimla Devi Wife of Late Sri Ram Lakhan Vs. Ist Additional Distric ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2351
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of orders passed by R.C. & E.O/Additional City Magistrate V Kanpur Nagar in case No. 116 of 1984 under Section 16 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 dated 18.4.1985 declaring the vacancy of the accommodation in dispute, dated 6.5.1985 releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of original landlords respondents 3 to 5 and order dated 29.1.1987 rejecting review/recall application of the petitioner. The review/recall application was registered as case No. 109 of 1986. Aforesaid orders were challenged through Rent Revision No. 16 of 1987. I Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the revision on 1.4.1988. Said order is also challenged through this writ petition. During pendency of writ petition landlords respondents 3 to 5 sold the property to Jai Narayan and others who have been impleaded as respondents 6 to 8.2. Property in dispute is numbered as 29/8-A, Dwarika Danish Road Kanpur Nagar which is commercial accommodation/sh...
Harish Chandra and Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Widow of Sri Ram Shankar Agrawal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2784
S.U. Khan, J.1. Property in dispute is a three storied building occupying an area of about 450 sq. feet. The ground floor consists of a big Hall. On the first floor there are two rooms and other amenities like kitchen etc. On the second floor there is one room, one Varandah and open space Mother of both the petitioners Harish Chandra and Dinesh Chandra purchased the property in dispute from its previous owners through registered sale deed dated 7.8.1976 since before its purchase accommodation in dispute was under tenancy occupation of Ram Shanker Agarwal, who was carrying on business there from in the name of Messrs Popular Gramophone Saloon, which was sole proprietorship of Ram Shankar Agarwal. During pendency of proceedings before courts below Sri Ram Shanker Agarwal, the original tenant died and was survived by respondents 1 to 10 Respondent No. 1 also died during pendency of the writ petition and was survived only by respondents 2 to 10.2. Petitioners filed release application, giv...
indu Devi W/O Dharampal Vs. District Magistrate,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2787
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 1.12.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 29.3.2000 (Annexures-6 and 6-A) filed along with the writ petition. By the two impugned orders in the writ petition dated 29.3.2000, administrative and financial powers of the writ petitioner-appellant ceased under 95 11)(g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and by another order of the same date, i.e. 29.3.2000, it was held that the writ petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,606/ and consequently the half amount be recovered from the Pradhan-petitioner and half amount from the Gram Panchayat Adh kari.3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the aforesaid two orders contended before the learned Single Judge that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the i...
Shiv Prasad Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2154
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords-respondents 2 to 4 Manohar Lal and others against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 4 of 1988 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Azamgarh. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 4.4.1990 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlords-respondents filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 42 of 1990. 1st Additional District Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 3.5.1991, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority. Consequently, release application stood allowed. This writ petition by tenant is directed against the said judgment of the appellate court.2. In the property in dispute the tenant-petitioner is doing business. He has installed flour Mill and Oil expeller in the property in dispute. R...
Committee of Management, Rama Devi Balika Inter College Vs. Mohd. Iqba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All163; 2006(3)AWC2474
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vishal Agarwal.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved challenging the order dated 26-11-2005 passed by the District Judge in Civil Revision No. 674 of 2005 rejecting the revision of the petitioner.3. In a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff had died. When a matter in revision arising out of the same suit was pending before the District Judge, the substitution application of the deceased plaintiff was moved before the revisional court, which was allowed and subsequent amendments were incorporated in the memo of revision. Thereafter, the revision was decided and the record was sent to the trial court where the petitioner-defendant moved application (79-C) for abating the suit for not recording substitution in the plaint. The trial court rejected this application on the ground that substitution had already been recorded in the proceedings of revision befo...
V.S. Exim (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT779(All)
1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. Admittedly an Order-in-Appeal No. 110-113-CE/APPL/ NOIDA/05, dated 28-11-2005 passed under Section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, NOIDA against Order-in-Original No. 06/Addl. Commr/Noida/2005, dated 31-3-2005 passed by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida fastens liability to pay excise duty upon the petitioner. The said fact is evident from the letter issued by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-II (Noida), dated 28-11-2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the said office letter petitioner is mentioned at No. 2 whereby it is being informed that appeal against order-in-original (referred to above), will lie under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,...
Banwari Lal Associates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Basanti Devi Family Trust and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1811
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri M. K. Gupta advocate for the caveator-respondents.2. Sri M. K. Gupta submitted that this revision may be decided finally at this stage itself. As agreed between the parties, I proceed to decide this revision finally at this stage itself.3. The respondents 1st set instituted a suit against the respondents IInd set in respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 3N/24 Nehru Nagar, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad for eviction of the defendant-revisionist. The plaintiff-landlords determined the tenancy w.e.f. 2.8.2004 on the basis of a notice sent through registered post and also by U.P.C. on 2.7.2004 and 3.7.2004. The possession over the suit property, which was a shop on the ground floor measuring 22' x 20.6 feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,658, was claimed to be unauthorized w.e.f. 3.8.2004. The landlord-respondents claimed that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1988-89 and the first asses...
Baldeo Krishna, Advocate Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2461
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This case illustrates utter abuse of the Rent Control Act by the tenant. It is most unfortunate that tenant-petitioner happens to be a lawyer. Lawyers are expected to show more regard towards law than ordinary people.3. Accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature. Petitioner is a lawyer, practising on the taxation side, hence he must be earning good income. Rent is Rs. 5 per month. The said rent is also not being paid by the petitioner on the ground that some persons are quarrelling for landlordship. This is excellent situation for the tenant-petitioner. The last nail in the coffin is the fact that in this writ petition landlord has not been impleaded as party. Petitioner who is tenant and respondent No. 2 Dhan Prakash, applicant for allotment are fighting for the tenanted shop and landlord is watching the drama from the gallery.4. This writ petition is directed again...
Ram Niwas Son of Shri Birbal Vs. Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, Sub-divisional ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2341
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The applicant alleged that he was appointed on a substantive vacancy w.e.f. 16.10.1989 as a Collection Peon. The appointment letter indicated that he was being appointed against the vacancy occuring on the retirement of a collection peon and that his services were to continue till such time a regular appointment was made by a Selection Committee. The applicant alleged that on account of the displeasure of the Tehsildar, the impugned order of termination dated 25.10.1991 was issued without any authority by the Tehsildar and without giving any opportunity of hearing. Since the Tehsildar had no authority to issue the order of termination, consequently, the applicant filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in which an interim order dated 13.1.1992 was passed staying the operation of the impugned termination order dated 25.1.1991, It is alleged that inspite of the issuance of the interim order, the opposite parties neither allowed the applicant to join his dutie...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »