Allahabad Court February 2006 Judgments
Rajesh Pratap Singh Son of Shri Raghav Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3164
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri Triloki Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra Dube, learned Counsel for the respondents- Union of India are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the matter. On the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Mishra Alias Guriya Wife of Prem Kumar, D/O Ravindra Nath Tiwari ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All182
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The law point was raised on the last date by the court if this writ petition' is maintainable in the fase of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provide for appeal against the judgment, decree and orders passed by the Family Court dealing with the matter for award of interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited a case law of Ravi Saran Prasad alias Klshore v. Smt Rashml Singh 2001 (19) LCD 707 and has thus, tried to emphasise that since no appeal would lie against the order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the only remedy left to the aggrieved party is by way of writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.4. Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, provides for appeal from every judgment or order not being interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Daiya Charitable Society Trust Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)161
1. Heard Shri Satish Mandhyan, advocate, representing the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, advocate, appearing for the respondents.2. It is pleaded that petitioner had filed an application dt. 8th July, 2001, addressed to the Dy. CIT, Circle, IT Office, Allahabad, pointing out mistake in calculation while granting refund and on that basis claiming refund of additional amount of Rs. 3,43,111 (as on 28th June, 2001), photostat copy of the said application (bearing illegible initials of some official of the office of Dy. CIT, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, dt. 9th July, 2001) is Annex. 5 to the writ petition.3. Normally, an official receipt is issued by the office of IT Department while filing application/document. The said receipt or its photostat has not been brought on record till date. It is not stated that no such 'receipt' was obtained and, if so, why ?4. According to the petitioner, no action was taken on the said application and finally a reminder by way of written application dt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Singh, Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2162
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda Camp at Mahoba allowing revision setting aside order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mahoba dated 12.8.2002 and affirming order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.3.1991.2. Dispute relates to Khata No. 163, 1213, 232, and 327 recorded in the name of Brij Rani widow of Devi Singh in the final consolidation record. Two sets of objection under Section 12 were filed, one by petitioners relying upon will dated 23.6.198l and other by contesting opposite parties who relied upon a will dated 22.8.1984. Both contesting opposite parties prayed for mutating their names on the basis of their respective wills. Consolidation Officer found will dated 22.8.1984 proved and passed an order on 13.3.1991 of mutation of contesting respondents as in place of deceased Smt. Brij Rani on the basis of the aforesaid will and Consolidation Officer further found will da...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Singh Vs. Board of Directors, Deoria-kasaya Zila Sahkari Bank ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1804
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager at Branch Rudrapur of Deoria-Kasaya, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited.3. It is alleged that on 13.11.2000 and 20.3.2001 two new accounts were opened when the petitioner was on field duty and was not present in the bank. When the balance sheet was being prepared it came into light that Rs. 46,000 and Rs. 33,000 were fraudulently withdrawn from the bank through the aforesaid two new accounts without depositing any money.4. On 26.10.2002, when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he made a complaint to the Higher authorities. Sri Shyam Nawal Yadav, Senior Manager was appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and report of preliminary enquiry dated 26.10.2002 was submitted. On the direction of the Superior Officers, the petitioner made a complaint dated 29.10.2002 to the police along with inquiry report dated 26.10.2002 and F.I.R. was lodged on 2.11.2002.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1786
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This petition has been filed by an advocate practising in this Court for a direction upon the respondent U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parishad') to make payment of the professional bills of the petitioner along with interest.2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner had been appointed as a counsel for the Parishad by the letter dated 24th July, 1996 and after his appointment as counsel the petitioner conducted many cases for which he submitted bills to the Parishad but payment was not made. This compelled the petitioner to send letters to the Parishad for making the payment but the Parishad failed to make the payment. In the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner it has also been stated that the petitioner was informed on telephone that his name has also been removed from the panel of lawyers of the Parishad though no communication in writing was sent to him.3. We have heard Sri K.N. Mishra,...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Umar Son of Ilahi Bux Vs. the Collector/District Magistrate,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2412
Saroj Bala, J.1. All these bunch cases involving common question of law are being decided together.2. The facts of each writ petition are as hereunder:1. Writ Petition No. 31782 of 19923. The order impugned in the writ petition is the citation dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). A contract for realisation of Tehbazari dues for the financial year 1990-91 was granted to the petitioner the highest bidder for Rs. 2,85,000/-. The petitioner entered into an agreement. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 85,000/- remained outstanding towards the contract in question which is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 291 of the U.P. Municipalities Act are not applicable. According to the petitioner the contract money cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue,4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.2. Writ Petition No. ...
Tag this Judgment!imamuddIn Vs. Mohd. Yusuf and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2529
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the order dated 13th July, 2005, passed by the revisional court, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondent-plaintiff, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.2. Plaintiff, Mohd. Yusuf, the respondent in this writ petition, filed a suit impleading the petitioner as defendant. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application paper No. 6C with the prayer that a temporary injunction may be granted to the plaintiff. The trial court vide its order dated 20th May, 2005 has held that it is expedient in the interest of justice that no ex parte temporary injunction can be granted to the plaintiff and the injunction application may be disposed of only after hearing the defendant, it therefore directed issue notices on the injunction application to the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hiramani Widow of Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. the Vii Addl. Distric ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1810
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlords writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and recovery of rent filed by original landlord Nand Kishore against tenant respondent No. 2 Bashir Ahmad alias Bashir Miyan in the form of S.C.J.C. Suit No. 180 of 1983 on the file of J.S.C.C. Gorakhpur. Nand Kishore died during pendency of the suit and was survived by the petitioners. In the plaint of the suit it was stated that Nand Kishore was owner landlord of the property in dispute in which defendant Bashir Ahmad was tenant on his behalf. It was also mentioned in the plaint that tenant was defaulter in payment of rent, hence he was liable to eviction, as he had neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises in dispute in spite of notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent. The defendant pleaded that he had purchased the house in dispute from the father of the plaintiff, hence there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between him and the plaintiff and the plaint should be returned ...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Dewan Son of Late Vidya Sagar Dewan Joint Managing Director and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC475
Amitava Lala, J.1. In the present case, the petitioners wanted to get an order of quashing the F.I.R. dated 29th September, 2005 lodged as Case Crime No. 853 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad and further incidental prayers as well as interim order not to arrest the petitioners during pendency of the writ petition. It is well known that Section 420 I.P.C. is made for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Such offence is cognizable, non-bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, and triable by Magistrate of First Class. Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are really applicable in the case of forgery.2. The case of the complainant being respondent No. 4, the Secretary of Ganna Samiti Ltd., Kanth, in the first information report is that upon purchasing sugarcane through samiti by the petitioner company, the petitioners, being Managing Director and Occu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »