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.
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Santosh Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All30
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5-8-2006 whereby the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant has been set aside and the case has beeen remanded for further hearing and disposal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon the fact that the respondent defendant in the divorce petition did not file her written statement to contest it and as such, the suit had to be decreed ex parte under Order 8, Rule 10, CPC. The respondent was obliged to file written statement after she had put in appearance in the case but since she failed to do the same, the trial Court has very rightly pronounced the ex parte judgment in the case and decreed the suit as such. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was no Justification on the part of the lower appellate Court to have set aside that judgmet simply because there was non-compliance on the part of the appel...
Vishnu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All31; 2007(1)AWC1010
ORDERBharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah, by which he has come to a conclusion that the petitioner was unable to establish the authority concerned that he was the lawful wedded husband of Smt. Geetha who expired on 9-8-2000.3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that previously, Smt. Geeta Tewari was married to one Ashok Kumar and decided to separate from him. The separation between Geeta Tewari and Ashok Kumar, her first husband was settled by both parties on 21-5-2000. The statement on record in Annexure-3, which also contains a stipulation that the separation itself gives a right to either party to enter into a fresh marriage. It is admitted to the petitioner who claims to be the second husband that he married Smt. Geeta Tewari ...
Sanjay Vs. Upper Zila Adhikari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1380
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner claims that he was living with his aunt-Smt. Ram Kali who was tenant of the disputed accommodation. His aunt died in 2004 and the disputed house No. 118/88 (new No. 119/245) Darshan Purva Kanpur Nagar remained in his possession till his dispossession on 12.1.2006 by the landlord in pursuance of the impugned order dated 21.7.2005.2. Concise facts are that a release application was moved on 27.4.2004 by the landlord before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Report was called by the authority from the Rent Control Inspector vide order dated 28.4.2004 who submitted his report. After considering the report of the Rent Control Inspector, release application was allowed and vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 8.9.2004. Consequently the accommodation under the tenancy of Smt. Ram Kali (since deceased) was released in favour of the landlord and he was given possession of the same.3. Counsel for the petitioner has ...
Smt. Neelam Manglani and anr. Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1601
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri R.B. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur. It appears from record that the father of the petitioner No. 2 had filed an application under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (paper No. 4-Ga) supported by an affidavit dated 2.12.2004 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 for allowing him to make payment of rent which was due since March, 2003 till December, 2004. An extract of khatauni was also filed by the father of the petitioner No. 2 on 8.5.2005 to establish that the property in dispute is not a waqf property but is owned by the State Government.3. Sri Habib Ahmad, Advocate who is said to be the Secretary of the Hamidia Education...
Nighat Naseem Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1018
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard earned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.2. The petitioner claims to be daughter of Mohd. Mustafa Khan. She is married to one Aftab Ahmad and is residing with him at 349, Khalapar Dak8hlni. Muzaffamagar. The dispute in this writ petition is regarding rent and eviction of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from the shop in dispute. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Mohd. Mustafa Khan whereas respondent No. 5 is the wife of Mohd. Mustafa Khan. All the three respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are residents of 501, Khalapar, Muzaffamagar. Thus, the petitioner is sister of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and daughter of respondent No. 5 Smt. Shamim Bano and Mohd. Mustafa Khan.3. The accommodation in dispute is a commercial shop and not a commercial building. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a release application registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2004 against respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 17.1.2005. Aggrieved,...
Dhirendra Bharti Vs. Devi Prasad Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2339
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Claim Petition No. 120 of 1978 before the Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, on the allegations that minibus No. MP 9866 owned by the present appellant insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. hit their minor son Brahm Prakash on 24.2.1978, who died on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid minibus. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation. The said claim petition was contested by the present appellant who is the owner of the said minibus, as also by the insurance company, respondent No. 3, in the appeal. The case of the insurance company was that the said minibus was owned by Ali Ahmad & Sons and on 18.6.1977 the insurance policy was issued by it insuring Ali Ahmad & Sons for a period of one year. Before the date of the accident the said vehicle was transferred by Ali Ahmad & Sons in favour of the present appellant and as such the insurance policy...
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Paliwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1595
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned judgment dated 9.3.2005 passed by Special Judge E.C. Act/Additional /District Judge, Agra in S.C.C. Revision No. 46 of 2004 arising out of order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in Misc. Case No. 38 of 2004 in S.C.C. Suit No. 286 of 1984.3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 286 of 1984 was filed by respondent No. 1 against Ramesh Dutt Paliwal father of the petitioner for recovery of rent and ejectment, claiming herself to be owner and landlord of the property on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sukh Devi wife of Sri Krishna Dutt Paliwal.4. Ramesh Dutt Paliwal sole defendant of Suit No. 286 of 1984, filed his written statement repudiating the plaint allegations. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed himself to be the owner of the property on...
Shree Ram Fuels Private Limited Through Its Director Sri Indra Chandra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST134(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22nd August, 1998.2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Smokeless Fuel and Coal tar. Coal is one of the raw material. Applicant applied for exemption under Section 4-A of the Act and eligibility certificate was issued on 25th March, 1992 granting exemption on the turnover of manufactured goods w.e.f. 5.9.1989 for the period of five years. Commissioner of Trade Tax issued notice under Section 4-A (3) of the Act for the cancellation of the eligibility certificate mainly on the ground that at the time of survey dated 10.1.1990 difference in the stock as per stock register and physical verification was found. At the time of aforesaid survey, it was also found that on 9.1.1990 at Naubatpur check post, 12 Forms 31 were passed for 12 trucks of coal, but by the time of sur...
No. 810706369 Naik Ibrar Khan Son of Shri Mohd. Ayoob Khan Vs. Union o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC974
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7th March, 1997 passed by Commandant, C.R.P.F., Phesama, Kohima, Nagaland dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 13th March, 1'997 and the order of the appellate authority, Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneshwar dated 6th November, 2003.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in this Court on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Nagaland, the departmental inquiry was initiated and was conducted at Nagaland. He further submits that dismissal order dismissing the petitioner from servi...
Nagar Nigam Through Its Municipal Commissioner Vs. Smt. Rabiya Begum a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC606
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a Suit No. 340 of 1996 against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for a declaration that the plaintiffs be declared the owner of the house in question alongwith defendant-respondent No. 3. The defendant No. 1 is the present petitioner and is the Nagar Nigam of Allahabad. The record indicates that the summons were duly served upon the petitioner on 24.6.1996 and since the petitioner did not appear, the trial court, by an order dated 12.12.1996. ordered the suit to proceed ex parte under Order IX, Rule 13 (1) (a) of the C.P.C.2. It Is alleged by the petitioner that Sri Jata Shanker Pandey, the advocate of the petitioner before the District Court appeared before the trial court in relation to some other matters of the Nagar Nigam. The Court asked the advocate as to why he was not appearing in the present case. It is further alleged that the advocate stated orally to the Court that he had no instructions in the matter. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »