Allahabad Court October 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.
Kamal Kumari Singh (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2841
1. This special appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the order of the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court dated 4.9.2006 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the matter may not be referred for initiation of proceeding for Criminal Contempt of Court for deliberate concealment of material facts/ statement of half facts and for misleading the Court.2. Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that if an order is not a final order but even if notice is issued an appeal under Section 19 of the Act would lie and placed reliance on the following:1. Barad Kanta v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra : 1975CriLJ1 ;2. Purshotam Das Gael v. Justice B.S. Dhillon : 1978CriLJ772 ;3. Union of India v. Mario Cabral E Sa : AIR1982SC691 ;4. D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26 : 1988 (2) AWC 1133 (SC);5. State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy...
Nar Singh Das Agrawal Son of Late Shri Sharda Prasad Agrawal Vs. Chief ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC727
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner purchased a house which is constructed on 200 sq. yard of land through sale deed dated 20.8.1993. At the relevant time under the Stamp Rules circle rate for residential properties of the area where house in dispute is situate (i.e. Station Bajariya, Mal Godown Road) was Rs. 55/- per sq. feet. Stamp duty at the said rate was paid by the petitioner. After two weeks of its registration the sale deed was impounded as Sub-Registrar reported that by reading the description of the property and the area where it is situate mentioned in the Sale deed it is possible that the property in question may be treated to be commercial. The reference was made by Sub Registrar on 4.9.1993. At the relevant time circle rate for commercial properties in the area in question was Rs. 150/- per sq. feet. A report was called for from the Tehsildar who reported that proper stamp duty had been paid. However, A.D.M.(Stamp), Etawah through order dated...
Fahimur Rahman Siddiqui Son of Sri Nisar Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC53
A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. In view of our judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54400 of 2006 Smt. Omitri Rai v. General Manager and Anr. we find that this case does not stand on better footing, since the petitioner admittedly submitted an affidavit in the prescribed proforma and the omission of the word 'Bhai (brother)' was relevant and vital to the issue to be considered by the Indian Oil Corporation. It cannot be said to be a merely typographical or inadvertent mistake.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has however, referred to the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Bench of Hon. Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Hon. Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma in Writ Petition No. 6473 (M/B) of 2006 Pramod Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. which is quoted as under:The petitioner while making an application for grant of licence, by typographica...
Sri Jagannath Prasad Bajpai Son of Late Sri Roop NaraIn Bajpai Vs. Dis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1065]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner had filed an application on 6.7.2002 opting to retire at the age of 58 years. Under the Rules, the petitioner could have only applied till 1.7.2000 in that particular year, clearly the application of the petitioner itself was not maintainable. Even though the District Inspector of Schools countersigned the application of the petitioner on 10.7.2002.3. When the petitioner came to know about this, the petitioner withdrew his option on 27.8.2002. The petitioner date of birth is 2.7.1944 and he was to attain the age of superannuation on 13.6.2003.4. It is the contentions of the petitioner that since the petitioner withdrew his option to retire at 58 years, he should have continued till 13.6.2005. The ground taken in the writ petition is that in the scheme as provided in the relevant Government Order as well as in the relevant rules of the year 1981, acceptance...
Ram Bali S/O Ahibaran Vs. State of U.P. Through Revenue Secretary, U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC988
Janardan Sahai, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pandey learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.2. The petitioner took a loan from the Allahabad Bank for purchase of a tractor. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that this loan was taken in the year 1999 and was repayable in instalments over a period of nine years. It appears that the petitioner defaulted. The Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the citation issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar and the recovery proceedings and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioner The petitioner has not disputed having taken the loan. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition he has expressed his grievance that compound interest is being charged, which the Bank could not. The petitioner's contention is that the recovery certificate ought to have been sent to the Up Ziladhikari and not to the Collector and further...
In Re: Parasram Puria Trading and Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas65(All); (2007)1CompLJ138(All); [2007]76SCL223(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. M/s. Parasrampuria Trading and Finance Ltd. was wound up by this Court on March 25, 1998, in a creditors' winding up petition No. 58 of 1997, filed by M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. The official liquidator has been appointed as liquidator of the company, the statement of affairs have been filed.2. Prior to the winding up of the company the Central Government appointed Shri BKL Srivastava, inspecting officer to inspect the books of account and statutory records of the company under Section 209A of the Companies Act. He carried out inspection for the period March 31, 1990 to March 31, 1994, and submitted his report dated July 31, 1995, to the Registrar of Companies, Regional Director, Company Affairs and the Central Government. He found that the directors of the company have committed several contraventions, namely, that the funds of the company were regularly being used by the directors for their personal gains, and that Shri S.K. Parasrampuria withdrew during the financia...
Harpal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1247
ORDERKrishna Murari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by 51 tenure- holders of village Chindauri Tehsil Sardhana district Meerut claiming a writ of mandamus to direct the consolidation authorities to reassess the valuation of the plots, trees, wells and other improvements and also to record correct shares of the co-tenure holders in the holdings and accordingly, issue fresh C.H. Form No. 5 and then proceed with the consolidation operation. A further relief of certiorari has been claimed to quash the entire proceedings undertaken by the authorities after order of remand dated 17.5.1989, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.2. Briefly stated the facts are as under:The village in question was notified for consolidation operation vide notification issued under Section 4A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') published in Gazette dated 10.7.1980. After publication of the provisional consolidation scheme various objections were filed by the tenure-hol...
Smt. Reena JaIn Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(All)491
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. All these appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' have been filed by different appellants against the order dated 9-3-1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in respect of five persons, namely, Sri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Sri Sanjay Kumar Jain, Smt. Reena Jain, Smt. Usha Chawla and Smt. Sushma Jain and order dated 15-3-1999 in the case of M/s. Jagdish Chand & Sons and M/s. Gurbachan Lal & Sons. In all these appeals originally when filed, the appellants have sought to raise the twelve substantial questions of law, however, by way of an application, which has been allowed vide order dated 16-11-2000, the appellants have sought leave of the court to substitute them by the following questions of law:(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding the initiation of proceeding under Section 148 valid wi...
Smt. Girja Devi Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1013
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Banda in S.C.C. Revision No. 73 of 2005, Smt. Girja Devi and Anr. v. Virendra Kumar Rawat and Anr. and the judgment and order dated 14.11.2005, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Banda in Misc. Case No. 73/74 of 2000, Smt. Arti v. Virendra Kumar and Anr.3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 1 of 1979, Virendra Kumar Rawat v. Smt. Girja Devi and Ors. was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court, Banda, for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 15.12.2000, passed by the trial court. The petitioner filed a restoration application for recall of the ex parte order dated 15.12.2000 and on the same day he moved an application for permission to deposit the decretal amount.4. It is stated that the tender could not be pas...
Viswanath Prasad Bajpai (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Vth Addl. Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1337
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. For execution of money decree passed in Original Suit No. 456 of 1964 Execution Case No. 39 of 1971 was filed. In execution proceedings agricultural land belonging to judgment-debtor, admeasuring 8.63 acres was sold in auction for Rs. 5,600 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 on 7.3.1972. Petitioner No. 1 is decree holder and petitioner No. 2 Prem Kumar is auction purchaser, whose bid in the auction dated 7.3.1972 was highest. The sale was confirmed on 8.7.1972. According to petitioner No. 2, possession was also given to him on 8.7.1972. However, this fact was seriously denied by the judgment-debtors respondents.3. Judgment-debtors on 9.7.1973 filed two objections-one under Section 47, C.P.C. and the other under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. Objections under Order XXI, Rule 90 C.P.C. were initially registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 89 of 1973, thereafter as Miscellaneous Case No. 120 of 1977 and objections under Section 47, C.P.C. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »