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.
Munna Vs. Smt. Raj Kishori Dixit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1268
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri J. N. Mishra, advocate, for the caveator-respondents.2. This is defendants second appeal. A suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendants stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law argued in this appeal are:(1) Whether an amendment application and additional evidence can be allowed at appellate stage to fill up lacuna or gaps in evidence against the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 and Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C.?(2) Whether the appellate court, on framing an issue, should have and not referred the case to trial court in compliance of Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C.?(3) Whether the decision by appellate court on issue which was not an issue before trial court is not violative of established procedure for civil trial and principles of justice and fair play?The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the defendant No. 2 for sanctioning the map. Alternative relief claimed was for recovery of Rs. 19,0...
Swami Prasad Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1788
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the judgment of appellate authority and that of the prescribed authority dated 14.10.1982 and 11,6.11981 (Annexures-3 and 2) respectively.2. Proceedings are under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Pursuant to the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, objection came from the side of petitioner challenging correctness of the statement as appeared in the notice. After the objection and evidence, prescribed authority by its order dated 23.6.1976 declared an area of 8.23 acres of land as surplus, upon which the petitioner filed appeal in which by the judgment of the appellate authority dated 25.7.1977, surplus area was reduced and an area of 4.37 acres was declared as surplus. The petitioner came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3564 of 1977 which was allowed and the matter was remanded by order of this Court dated 12.1.1979 for a fresh decis...
Smt. Indu Khanna Vs. Abhishek Kumar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2492
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist. Sri Manish Nigam, advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of plaintiff-respondents.2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 24.3.2005 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 2002 Abhishek and Anr. v. Smt. Indu Khanna, whereby the plaintiffs' application under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionist's defence has been struck down. The defendant has stated that after the S.C.C. suit was instituted, the rate of rent claimed by the landlord was Rs. 3,500 per month alleged to be due from 20.10.2001 to 16.6.2002 and the tenant is defaulter. Inspite of service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, neither the rent nor the vacant possession was handed over to the plaintiffs. The revisionist filed her written statement denying the plaint allegation and also the rate of rent was claimed @ Rs. 1,500 per month....
Bank of Baroda Vs. Bombay Burma Trading Co. and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 3(2006)BC104
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bank against the interlocutory order dated 19th March, 2000 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in T.A. No. 329/98, whereby and whereunder the petitions filed by some of the respondents, who were defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 and 10 in the original T.A. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 5 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC have been allowed and appellant Bank was asked to delete the names of defendant Nos, 3 to 11 from the plaint by filing amendment petition and for misjoinder of defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, appellant was asked to compensate them to pay Rs. 3, 000/- each to those defendants. The appellant Bank had filed the original suit for recovery of Rs. 23, 56, 281/- against all defendants including defendant No. 1 J.C. Mills Ltd. as borrower, defendant No. 2 as proprietor and defendant Nos. 3 to 11 as recipients of the goods through MTR. As per the agreement under documentary purch...
Dharam Pal Son of Akash Deen Yadav, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Jag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1421
Amar Saran, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. In this case, initially the FIR was lodged as a non-cognizable report (NCR) at police station Phoolpur, District Allahabad under Sections 323 and 504 IPC on 8.7.1999 at 5 pm about an incident dated 8.7.1999. The allegations in the NCR lodged by Jagannath were that as the cattle of the accused had entered his field, when his wife and son tried to drive the animals out of the field, there was an exchange of hot words with the applicants who beat Devkali and Kamlesh with lathies and dandas and caused injuries on the head of Devkali and arms and fingers of Kamlesh. Subsequently, it appears that on the basis of the medical report the case was converted to one under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC by the investigating officer and subsequently he even added Section 308 IPC when he submitted the charge-sheet on 12.10.1999.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that the investigat...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Nepal Singh Son of Ramcharan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1429
Shiv Shanker, J.1. This case was initiated upon a show cause notice issued in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5756 of 2001, Mohan Lal v. State of U.P., by this Court against the contemner Nepal Singh son of Ram Charan.2. Brief facts, arising out of this case, are that Chhotey Lal son of Jawahar Lal lodged an F.I.R. on 13.2.1998 at 11.25 A.M., at Police Station Bisharatganj, district Bareilly wherein it was stated that his younger brother Net Ram had kept the wife of Har Prasad, who was murdered by his brother Mohan Lal one year ago of the present occurrence. Therefore, due to keeping the wife of Har Prasad, Mohan Lal harboured ill-will. On 12.12.1998, at about 7.30 P.M.,. Mohan Lal accused reached near Net Ram, who was warming under a tree at his house along with companion, his nephew Prem Pal and others. Mohan Lal and his companion surrounded Net Ram who stood and run away towards his house where Mohan Lal fired two shots upon Net Ram in his court-yard and his companions attacked ...
Timraj Singh S/O Made Singh and Om Veer Singh S/O Tim Raj Singh Vs. th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1287
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioners on the one hand and the respondents no. 4 to 8 on the other hand, had purchased half share each of Plot No. 180 in dispute, by two separate sale deeds. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for division of holdings, in. which a preliminary decree was drawn on 16.11.1999 and the final decree prepared on 21.3.2002. As per the said decree the total area of Plot No. 180 was shown as 2.3210 Hectares, which was distributed in two Kurras each measuring 1.1605 Hectares. Thereafter, in the proceedings for dakhal, the Revenue Inspector in his report dated 28.5.2004 had reported that there was a deficiency of 0.1692 Hectare land in Plot No. 180, meaning thereby that the land available for distribution amongst the two sets of parties was only 2.1518 Hectares. It was further found by the Revenue Inspector that the respondents were found in possession of 0.0099 Hectare lesser land than half share of total 2.3210 hectares land, w...
Latoori Prasad S/O Pyare Lal, Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ113
Ravindra Singh, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionists Latoori Prasad, Harish Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and Girish Kumar against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1987 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1987, whereby the appeal was dismissed and confirmed the judgement and order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 437 of 1985, whereby each of the revisionists were convicted under Section 308 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The revisionists Latoori Prasad, Harish Kumar and Girish Kumar were convicted under Section 308/341 I.P.C. and sentenced for a period of 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and they have been sentenced for a period of three months simple imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine each of the revisionists was sentenc...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Bansi Lal Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)258
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred following question of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 27(1) of the WT Act:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the house property at K 46/188, Bishesharganj, Varanasi, where 267 sq. ft. out of the total floor area of 13,250 sq. ft. was used by the partnership firm M/s Agro Dairy Products, while the balance was used by the assessee for its own residence, can be said to have been used by the assessee-family exclusively for its own residence and in that view directing that the value of the property should be determined by applying the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the WT Act, 1957?2. The dispute relates to the asst yr. 1975-76. The assessee is a specified HUF. Besides other property, he owned property at K 46/188, Bishesharganj, Varanasi. The area of the said house property is 13,260 sq. ft. out of which 267 sq. ft. was occupied by M/s...
Vikram Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ392CAT
1. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The applicant was one of the aspirants to the post of Store keeper in the respondents' organization and he was declared successful as a general candidate and his merit position in the general candidate was 12. He was accordingly informed.2. Strange enough (according to the applicant) he was not offered any appointment, though others selected were appointed. The applicant moved this Tribunal in OA No. 912 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 27th August, 2004, with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant.3. In compliance with the said order of the Tribunal the respondents have passed the impugned order, which is reproduced below: 1. This has reference to your representation dated 14.12.2004 addressed to Brig A.K. Jyoti, ACC (Records), Secunderabad endorsing thereof a copy of the undersigned amongst others. 2. Your above mentioned representation was replied to vide this depot letter ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »