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.
Dr. Mukesh Khare S/O Sr. V.P. Khare, Vs. State of U.P. Through Princip ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1770
R.C. Deepak, J.1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.C. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.P. Srivastava and Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent no2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record including the cases cited by the parties as under:2. The cased referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners :1. 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1369 Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Anr.2. : 1960CriLJ1239 R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab3. : 1960CriLJ1244 The Chairman of the Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja & Sons4. : 2003CriLJ3888 Ramesh Chandra Sinha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.5. 2005 (25) AIC 379 (SC) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. M.D. Sharaful Hague and Ors.6. 2005 (25) AIC 385 (SC) Subramani and Ors. v. M Chandralekha3. The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 :1. 2005 SCC (Cri.) 735 Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu2. : 1999CriLJ3479 Arun Vyas and Anr. v. Anita Vy...
Sundar Lal Son of Bhagwan Das and Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2777
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this, writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revisions filed by them and various other persons and remanding the case back after setting aside the provisional consolidation scheme with a direction to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to prepare the same afresh after redetermining the valuation and exchange ratio. A further writ of mandamus has been claimed to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions filed by the petitioners on merits.2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:-3. After publication of the provisional consolidation scheme the contesting respondent No. 8 along with 215 other tenure holders of the village filed objection against the provisional consolidation scheme on the ground that a large number of illegalities and irregularities were committed by the subordinate staffs ...
Smt. Munni Wife of Noor Mohammad Vs. the Additional District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2782
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition. The tenant is adamant to protract her possession indefinitely. Rent Control Act protects the possession of the tenant in certain contingencies. However some times it is misused by tenants to protract their tenancy. Since the time of filing of the release application by landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh on the ground of bonafide need, petitioner is continuously harping on the fact that she is a widow, even though she has got several sons who must be of middle age by now. Weak people do require some extra protection however they can not be permitted to use their weakness as sword. It can be used only as a shield.2. Landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh initiated proceedings for release / eviction against tenant petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute from which eviction of tenant petitioner was sought is a house, rent of which...
Sri Parma Nand Son of Rattoo Mal Vs. 3rd Additional District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2532
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord-respondent No. 3 Diwan Chand Sharma, since deceased and survived by legal representatives against original tenant Rattomal, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of U.P.U.B. Case No. 36 of 1980 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Aligarh. During pendency of release proceedings before Prescribed Authority original tenant Ratto Mal died and was substituted by his widow and one of his sons Parmanand. The other two sons of Rattomal i.e. Bhuramal and Asha Ram were residing at Bhopal, hence they were not impleaded.2. Property in dispute is a house having four rooms, Varandah, Sehan and other amenities. Rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs. 35/-per month. In the release application, it was stated that landlord had three sons out of whom two her serving in Army. (Now all the sons of original landlord have retired). La...
Kamal Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Faiyazan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1270
Umeshwar Pandey, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It has been contended that the application moved on behalf of the defendants petitioners for granting permission to examine three witnesses in the trial court was refused vide order dated 20.10.2005 and the revision filed against the said order by the petitioners before the District Judge was also dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2005. In the application for permission to examine the witnesses, it was specifically stated that the witness namely Ompal is a person, who had lent some amount to the plaintiff respondent, which she (plaintiff) paid back to Ompal on 10.10.2000 after receiving the consideration sum from the defendants for executing the impugned sale deed dated 30.9.2000. It is a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.9.2000 in which several grounds were taken. It has also been pleaded that no consideration was received in respect of this transaction of sale by the plaintiff from the defendants petitioners. In...
Ram Shanker Vs. Viith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2458
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by landlord-respondent No. 3 Ajeet Kumar against Smt. Jagga Devi who died during pendency of the suit and was survived by petitioner and proforma respondents 4 to 9. The suit was registered as S.C.C. suit No. 850 of 1984 on the file of J.S.C.C, Kanpur. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 18.13. In the plaint of the suit eviction was sought on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent was also prayed for.3. First landlord had given a notice on 8.9.1981, thereafter another notice was given on 20.12.1983. Suit was filed on 9.10.1984. Tenant pleaded that he had deposited the entire amount of rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as the same had been refused by the landlord. The case under Section 30 was registered as Misc. Case No. 273/70/80, Jagga Devi v. Ajeet Kumar Jain. Through first notice dated 8.9.1981 landlord had signified his willingn...
Bhagwandeen S/O Ganga Ram Vs. State of U.P., Through Special Secretary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2339
Vineet Saran, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.6.2003 whereby the Respondent No. 2, Prescribed Authority/Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry), Etawah, has seized the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2001 with effect from 16.4.2001. The order dated 8.3.2004, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the State of U.P., has also been challenged.2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on 25.3.2003 a first information report was lodged by 'Van Daroga' against four persons, namely, Narendra; Vijai Singh; Rajesh Kumar and Onkar for possessing coal made out from the forest wood which was loaded in truck No. URA 9714. The petitioner was not named in the first information report which was registered as Forest Crime No. 121/02-03 under Sections 26/52 and 55 of Indian Forest Act and Rule 3/28 of the correspondin...
The General Electric Company of India Limited Vs. the Additional Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2775; [2006(108)FLR1041]; (2006)IILLJ651All
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against a judgment dated 10.3.87 passed by the District Judge in an appeal filed by the respondent workman under Section 20 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.3. The undisputed facts of the ease are that the respondent workmen were working with the petitioner belonging to skilled category, in the trade of electrician, having the designation of Assistant Electrician.4. In exercise of its power under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the State of U.P. issued a notification dated 26th September, 1980 fixing the minimum wages included the petitioner's salary plus Dearness Allowances The petitioner's industry had more than 1100 workmen and therefore, was to be included in the 'G' Category. Under Clause-3 of the notification, the rates of basic wages were specified for skilled workmen to be Rs. 338 92. The variable D.A was, to be given at the rate of one rupees over 381 points.5...
Smt. Nisha Keserwani W/O Shri Surendra Kumar Keserwani Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All152; 2006(2)AWC1286
Vineet Saran, J.1. A sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 4.5.1996 on which requisite stamp duty on the sale consideration had been paid. It has been submitted that after a gap of more than four years, a notice dated 4.7.2000 was issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad to show cause why the said document be not impounded for being deficiently stamped and penalty be not imposed on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said notice was never served on him. However, by order dated 20.3.2003 the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Allahabad held that the valuation of the property in question was Rs. 20,00,000/- on which the stamp duty of Rs. 2,98,000/- ought to have been paid and thus after deducting the stamp duty already paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, it was held that the document was deficiently stamped by Rs. 2,64,624/-, on which a penalty of Rs. 376/- was also imposed and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- was found to b...
Ram Narayan S/O Baiznath Vs. Rakesh Tandon S/O Krishna Kant Tandon,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2700
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 27.10.1999 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Civil Revision No. 7 of 1998, Secretary, Jhansi Development Authority and Anr. v. Ram Narain (Annexure 14 to the writ petition).2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that a suit was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as Suit No. 418 of 1993 against one Rakesh Tandon and Anr. before the Court of Munsif Jhansi for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in making any constructions in any manner whatsoever over the land of Plot No. 1612 area 18 x 09 situated in village Lahar Gird, Jhansi. The allegations made in the plaint were that the petitioner had purchased the said area by a registered sale deed on 21.7.1990 from Prakash Narain Tandon Mukhtare am and son of the owner. His name was entered in the revenue record The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to interfere in the proposed construction.3....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »