Allahabad Court February 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.
Ramu Mahabir Vs. Ghurhoo Samu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All273
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. This second appeal of the plaintiff has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1986 passed by the lower appellate court (IInd. Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur).2. The appellant had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale -deed dated 10.12.1984 on several grounds taken in the pleadings including the ground that the sale had been obtained by practicing fraud upon him which could be easily manipulated by the defendant/respondent on account of his old age and also on account of his being illiterate. He further stated that no consideration in the present transfer by sale had passed from the defendant to him and he was cleverly deceived by the respondent, who represented to the plaintiff that he wanted a surety bond to be executed by him to indemnify the defendant towards the payment of some dues to the Government. The plaintiff was also given to understand that in case he did not execute the surety bond, the defendant/respondent might face arrest and...
ShamsuddIn and anr. Vs. Hemraj Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All25
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition challenges the order dated 5.12.05 passed by the Appellate Court whereby the petitioner's application for recasting the issues framed at the trial stage has been rejected.3. A suit for declaration of title and restoration of possession was filed before the regular Civil Court in which in certain paragraphs of the plaint it was pleaded that the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant on the disputed premises and he defaulted in payment of rent. Subsequently, the defendant petitioner also denied the title of the plaintiff respondent in the property and thus arose an occasion for filing the suit. The respondent-plaintiff also sought relief for recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner-defendant. During the pendency of the suit, on filing of the written statement by the defendant, it was disclosed that the property in question had been transferred through registered sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favo...
State Bank of India Vs. Chopra Fabricators and
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC10
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th May, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Allahabad in T.A.No. 112/2000 by which the application filed by the appellant Bank under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC has been disposed of by passing an order under Order 38 Rule 6 of the CPC. The appellant had filed original suit before the Civil Judge, Allahabad numbering Original Application No.539/93 for realization of Rs. 1,41,74,528.37 together with interest future and pendente lite and also with cost. In the matured stage of the suit when evidence had already been adduced from the side of the appellant Bank, D.R.T. was set up and the case was transferred to D.R.T., Jabalpur and then again retransferred to D.R.T., Allahabad and was numbered as T.A. No. 112/2000. During the pendency of the suit before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, there was a petition filed in the year 2002 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC from the side of the appellant and there was order for atta...
Hyper Chemicals and Cosmetics Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: II(2006)BC184
1. This appeal has been preferred against the part of the order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in T.A. No. 507/2000, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the respondent Bank for amendment sought of their plaint have been allowed.2. There is a history behind the case. Originally a suit was filed by the respondent Bank against the defendant-appellants for realization of dues. After the Tribunal was set up, firstly the original suit was transferred to DRT, Jabalpur and then to DRT, Allahabad and the case was renumbered as T.A. No. 507/2000. Once the case was decided in favour of the respondent Bank and the counter claim made by the defendant-appellants have been rejected. The appeal was filed against such judgment and order before this Appellate Tribunal, which was numbered as Appeal No. R-294/03. The then Chairperson of this Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal and by order dated 24.3.2004 had set aside the issuance of recovery certificate against ...
NihalbIn Iqbal Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC82
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26th July, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in M.A. No.42/03, whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the appellants for recall of the order dated 6th January, 2003 passed in T.A. No. 1387/ 03 has been dismissed.For appreciating the matter in dispute, the brief facts of the case are necessary to be reiterated, which are as under: 1. The respondent-Canara Bank, filed the Original Application No.117/98 for recovery of outstanding dues from the appellants before the DRT, Jabalpur. After setting up of the Tribunal at Allahabad the said case was transferred to DRT, Allahabad and was renumbered as T.A. No.1387 of 2000. During the pendency of the proceeding a compromise was effected between the Bank and appellants and as such although no compromise petition was filed, learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad by order dated 20th June, 2001 dismissed the case of the respondent-Bank taking cognizance of the co...
Anil Kumar Rastogi Son of Sri Hari Ram Rastogi, Shyam Sunder Mill Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1936
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notices dated 24.1.2006 and 25.1.2006, issued by the respondent no. 2, for recovery of amount and for auction of the vehicle owned by the petitioner and further to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and pay the damages caused by illegal seizure.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 for financing the vehicle on hire purchase agreement, and for that purpose a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lacs only) was sanctioned by the respondent No. 2 and hire purchase agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein a monthly instalment of Rs. 16,253.00 (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred fifty three only) was to be paid by the petitioner for 35 months as per the schedule of repayment for the purchase of the vehicle bearing No. U.P. 86-9981. Out of said 36 instalments, petitioner paid 22...
Bansal Sharevest Services Limited Through Its Director, Vs. Commission ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(All)517; [2008]306ITR162(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th December, 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. This is the third petition filed by the petitioners for challenging the orders passed under Section 127 of the Act, The first petition was filed for quashing the order dated 18th June, ,2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur under Section 127(2) of the Act transferring the cases mentioned in the order from Assessing Officers at Kanpur to the Assessing Officers at Mumbai by filing writ petition No. 1 120 of 2004 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 7.4.2005 but it was left open to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:On perusal of the aforementioned order we find that no reasons whatsoever has been mentioned in the order transferring th...
Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Tejpal Vs. Managing Director, Food Corporati ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3406
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The case is listed peremptorily today. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has sent his illness slip today. It appears from the order sheet that on 4.7.2005 the case was directed to be listed after a month as none of the learned Counsel for the parties was present from either side. The case was thereafter listed on 21.10.2005, i.e., almost after 2 1/2 months. On that day Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had sent his illness slip and the case was directed to be listed after six weeks. The case was thereafter listed on 2.2.2006 and on that day the Court after noting that the matter pertains to the dispute regarding date of birth directed the case to be listed on 13.2.2006. By order dated 5.4.2005 three weeks time was granted for filing counter affidavit arid one week's time was granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. By order dated 17.5.2005 two weeks' further time was granted for filing counter affidavit,...
The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-iii Vs. the Presidin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ249All
Bharati Sapru, J.1. This petition has been filed against an award of the Labour Court passed in adjudication case No. 194 of 1984 in proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference made was thus--Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India Region III. The Mall, Kanpur, in relation to their Jhonstonganj Branch, Allahabad in terminating the services of Shri Mahatrna Mishra, Ex-Messenger with effect from 4. 9. 7 982 and not considering him for further employment as provided under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, is justified, if not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled.2. By the award dated 10.5.1985 the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has reinstated the respondent No. 2 with full back wages.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.4. The facts appear from the record are that the respondent No. 2 was engaged as temporary employee at Jhonstonganj; Allahabad of the petitioner bank ...
Abdul Rahman, Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act),
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC2046
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction initiated by landlords against tenant respondent No. 3 Azeem Bux in the form of SCC Suit No. 1 of 1975 on the file of JSCC / Munsif III, Jalaun. In the plaint of the suit, it was asserted that as building in dispute was constructed in the year 1969, hence U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable thereupon. The said plea was found proved by the trial court hence suit was decreed on 31.3.1977. Revision filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the District Judge, Jalaun. The said judgments were challenged before this Court through writ petition No. 5408 of 1979. The paid writ petition was decided on 2.7.1980. The Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Singhal v. Smt. Murti Devi : AIR1980SC635 decided on 21.8.1979 had held that U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to every building, which was constructed before the enforcement of the said Act i.e. July 1972. On the basis of the said authority of Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »