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 Asrey S/O Sri Maiku Kaithwar Vs. Disciplinary Authority, Union Ban ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ1144All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner was working as clerk-cum-cashier in the Mughalsarai Branch of Union Bank of India. It appears that on 2.4.1999, Life Insurance Corporation of India wanted to make deposit of Rs. 48,840.25 Paise after 1 P.M. Since it was Saturday, the petitioner refused to accept the cash even after the Accountant instructed him to accept the same and make the deposit. On his refusal, the Branch Manager also instructed him in writing at about 1.15 P.M. to accept the late payment but the petitioner refused on the ground that his working hours were over. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded that the instructions be given to him in Hindi, in writing. In this way. he delayed the matter and Sri Ram Singh was handed over the charge of cashier at about 6 P.M. who accepted the deposit.2. Charge sheet dated 5.7.1988 was issued to the petitioner accusing him of adopting delaying tactics deliberately to avoid compliance of the instructions of superiors for doing acts pre-judicial ...
Taz Mohammad Son of Nasib Ali Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2491
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present petition has its genesis in the orders dated 15.12.2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation and 29.9.2005 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the caveator and learned Standing Counsel.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the orders are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order dated 5.7.2005 is still intact and Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass any other order by which the effect of these orders could be emasculated or annulled. He further canvassed that Consolidation officer nurtured bias and hence all the matters relating to allotment of chak be transferred to some other consolidation authority of competent jurisdiction.4. I have scanned the impugned orders as also the order dated 5.7.2005 and also the materials on record and it would transpire that some persons filed some application before th...
Bulaki Lal and ors. Vs. Mewa Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1266
Poonam Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mannu Chaudhary, advocate for the caveator-respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 12, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 696 of 2003 and order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 761 of 2002.3. The plaintiff-petitioners instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents. The claim of the petitioners was that they are in peaceful possession over the Sahan and also they have Charahi and animal shed. On an application moved by the defendants, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner who submitted his report. The petitioners filed their objection to the Commissioner's report and the defendants filed their counter objections. The trial court vide order dated 21.10.2003 confirmed th...
Jagat Pal Upadhyay Son of Sri Udai Raj Upadhayay Vs. the Commissioner, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3374
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 14.6.2000 and 6.5.2000 passed by opposite parties' No. I and 2 respectively and further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with regard to the petitioner's possession over the land in dispute.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was in possession over Land No. 61 area 0-2-6, No. 68 area 0-3-14. No 69 area 0-1-8 and No. 65 area 0-2-3 for the last 12 to 15 years. The petitioner filed Suit No. 1162 of 1998 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate under Section 229B and 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Notices were issued and the concerned opposite party No. 4 entered into compromise and as such the suit was decided in terms of the compromise vide its judgment and decree dated 14.10.1998. Alter the compromise decree the name of t...
Har Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. Smt. Sudha Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2331
O.N. Khandelwal, J.1. The petitioner-tenant had made an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. before the Judge Small Cause Court for setting aside the ex parte decree, which has been rejected for non-compliance, of the condition contained in Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the District Judge, Sultanpur. In this writ petition both the aforesaid orders (Annexures-1 and 2) have been challenged.2. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords who filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner, opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and two other persons (since deceased). The petitioner having fallen ill, could not attend the trial court. He was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, for treatment where he remained confined for about three months. On his return, he came to know that suit has proceeded ex parte against all the defendants. Application moved und...
Smt. Meera Devi Vs. A.D.J., Court No. Xiii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2641
O.N. Khandelwal, J.1. The petitioner's father Lalla was occupying a portion of house No. 293/48 (old) Haiderganj, P.S. Bazarkhala, Lucknow. The petitioner claims that after the death of her father she continued to occupy that premises, but the same has been released in favour of the landlord vide order of the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-9) and has also' been upheld by the revisional court on 16.11.2005 (Annexure-10). Prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders.2. The landlord-opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in 1996 impleading one Ram Gopal. It was alleged that after the death of the original tenant Lalla and his widow Ram Dulari, his nephew Ram Gopal has been in unauthorised occupation since the two daughters of tenant had already been married.3. After receiving the notice of the aforesaid release application, Ram Gopal filed his object...
Thagai and Vs. the Joint Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2790
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur dated 11.6.1987, the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.1.1981 and the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.15.1976 ( Annexures 8,7 and 5) respectively. By moving an amendment application, a prayer for quashing the earlier order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 28.4. 980 has also been made.2. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned advocate in support of writ petition and Sri M.D. Mishra, learned advocate in opposition thereof. For disposal of writ petition, facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.3. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act which relates to the adjudication of title of the parties. Dispute relates to land comprised in Khata No. 18 and 182 situated in village Gaura Tappa Nai Karahi Pargana Tilpur district Gorakhpur. In the basic year record, name of respondent No. 4...
Dhyan Singh Son of Sri Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2470
Bharati Sapru, J.1. This petition has been filed against an order dated passed by the appellate authority under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, by which the appellate authority has rejected the claim of Dhyan Singh that the gift deed made in his favour on 16.2.1972 could not get the benefit of proviso (b) of Section 5(6) of the Act aforesaid.2. The facts of the case are that one Ramdhar was tenure holder in Village Nagnedhi, Pargana Naraini, District Banda. Ramdhar made two transactions on 16.2.1972 i.e. to say after coming into force of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 24.1.1971. By a registered sale deed he passed on some plots to one of his grand son i.e. daughter's son and on the same date, he executed gift deed on 16.2.1972, which was registered in favour of the petitioner who was on that date a minor. By the gift deed-the petitioner also a grandson was given plots No. 946 to 950,...
Desh Raj Singh Vs. Smt. Vandana Chaudhary
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All154; 2006(3)AWC2475
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.2. Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 16-12-05 passed by Addl. District judge, court No. 13, Agra whereby the application 4-C and 12-C moved by appellant judgment debtor Desh Raj Singh under Order 21 Rule 55,58 and 59 CPC was rejected and objection 8-c filed by decree holder smt. Vandana Chaudhary was allowed.3. The fact of the case as disclosed from the record is that Srnt. Vandana Chaudhary filed suit No. 660 of 1991 Smy. Vandana Chaudhary V. Desh Raj Singh under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, It was decided on 31-08-01. The suit was decreed on the condition that in case Rs. 1.40.000/- is paid to the appellant by the respondent the marriage will stand dissolved. According to Desh Raj Singh Rs. 1.40.000/- which includes Rs. 1 Lakh for permanent maintenance and Rs. 40.000/- as valuation of articles belonging to the respondent decree holder was given to her on 9-11-01...
Halen Brothers Vs. Modi Threads Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas166(All); [2008]86SCL137(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This company petition filed under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeks an order to wind up M/s. Modi Tele Fibres Ltd., Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. (previously known as Modi Threads Ltd., Hem Kunt Tower, 1st Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi), (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company').It is alleged that the respondent-company placed various orders for supply of cotton bales on various dates through M/s. Sampat and Co., Cotton Merchant and Commission Agent, 4481, Dau Bazar, 2nd Floor, Cloth Market, Delhi. The goods were supplied from January 1, 1995, to April 1, 1995. The invoice numbers, quantity and price of bales are given in paragraph 5. These figured for a total amount of Rs. 72,11,934. The agreed mode of financial transaction was to raise a letter of credit in State Bank of India, Indore, and allowed the petitioner to draw the bills under letter of credit and get the payment from the bank against hundi. It is alleged in paragraph 8 th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »