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.
Mohar Singh (Boring Wala) Son of Sri Gyan Singh Vs. Laxmi Chand Son of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All168; 2006(3)AWC2312
Poonam Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Shri Diwakar Rai Sharma learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. The order dated 28.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6/Judge Small Causes Court, Muzaffar Nagar, in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2005- Laxmi Chand v. Mohar Singh, is challenged in this revision.3. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted a S.C.C. Suit for decree of eviction and possession on the ground of default in payment of rent of the disputed shop situated at Ram Rahim Market, Qasba Thana Bhawan, Pargana Thana Bhawan, district Muzaffar Nagar. The revisionist is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that no rent has been paid after 1.1.2003. A notice was sent on 2.6.2005 determining the tenancy and demand for arrears of rent and damages was made. The plaintiff contended that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1991, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. Copy of the plaint has been annexed as anne...
Mohd. Atiq Ullah Son of Late Ganzaffar Ullah Vs. State of Uttar Prades ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1820
Saroj Bala, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 3.8.1995 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad, respondent No. 3. The petitioner also seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to convert the lease hold rights into free hold rights and to refund the excess amount of Rs. 2,94,225-.2. The back up facts leading to the writ petition arc these:3. The U.P. State Government issued a Government Order dated 23.5.1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) announcing a policy for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights on depositing the assessed amount at the rates and manner prescribed therein. The petitioner moved an application on 16.1.1993 (Annexure-II to the writ petition) for conversion of the lease hold rights ...
Surendra Pal Singh Son of Sri Tursan Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC773
1. Supplementary affidavit filed be taken on record.2. Heard S/Sri R.K. Gautam and P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record produced before us.3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of victim Manju was solemnized with Pushpendra Singh, the son of the petitioner. It is alleged that there was demand of dowry and torture to her and in this continuation it is alleged that on 22.2.2005 the petition t along with co-accused caused her bum injury by sprinkling kerosene oil. Relating to the occurrence, a case as case crime No. 25 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 IPC is registered at police station Narkhi, district Firozabad. The victim appeared to have died and Section 304B IPC has been added therein.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a junior commissioned officer in Indian Army and is posted in 268 Medium Regiment, Dharamdhara, District...
Subha Maheshwari Vs. Rajul Maheshwari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2544; I(2006)DMC764
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition challenges the order of the Family Court dated 16.7.2005 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for deletion of paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the divorce petition has been partly rejected.3. The petition of divorce made by the respondent No. 1 before the Family Court is on the ground of cruelty. For that purpose certain facts have been pleaded in the aforesaid three paragraphs of the plaint stating that the petitioner wife had been in illicit relations with one Ranveer and subsequently a second man Ajay Batra. This act of the wife has given a lot of mental set back to the husband. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since these facts pleaded in the aforesaid paragraphs are, in appearance as well as in nature, scandalous, they should have been deleted in accordance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16, C.P.C. and further also on the ground that Issue No. 2 has been deleted by the Court below. Thi...
Ram Kishan Vs. Ratan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1819
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this petition the order of revisional court dated 1.12.2005 is under challenge. The revisional court has confirmed the order of trial court dated 25.3.2004 permitting an amendment in the plaint for adding relief of declaration in regard to a decree passed in earlier Suit No. 786 of 1996.3. In the present Suit No. 26 of 1999 the respondent plaintiff No. 1 had moved for amendment in the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. praying for addition of the aforesaid relief and also certain facts in regard thereto. The earlier Suit No. 786 of 1996 was between respondent Nos. 7 and 9 on one side as plaintiffs and 6 and 8 on the other side as defendants. The present petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were nowhere as parties to that suit. Obviously, any decree passed in the earlier suit are not concerning the present petitioner and respondent No. 1.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while replying to the query o...
Ujagar Son of Sri Jiva Ram Vs. the Chairman/Executive Officer, Nagar P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1968
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Karmchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Shikohabad District Firozabad on 1.8.1972 on permanent basis. He was issued a notice on 30.6.1992 by the then Executive Officer of [he Nagar Palika Parishad informing him that he shall retire from service after three months on 30.9.1992. The petitioner accordingly retired from service on 30.9.1992. No dues were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. After his superannuation the petitioner moved representations dated 6.7.2004 and 17.11.2004 for release of his pension and other retiral dues including gratuity, fund and group insurance, but no payment was made to him. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to pay the pension and other retiral benefits as group insurance, provident fund, gratuity an...
Vijay Kumar Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)463; [2006]283ITR524(All)
1. M/s. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, a registered partnership firm--with Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and Vijay Kumar Agarwal as its partners and Murlidhar Agrawal (father of these partners) and Prashant Kumar Agrawal son of the aforesaid Vijay Kumar Agarwal have filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the petitioners are closely related being father, son and grandson (hereinafter called as 'the petitioner'). The firm is engaged in sale of chemicals, namely, caustic soda, sodium hydro sulphate and maze starch, etc., and petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners have been submitting their return at Kanpur and assessed by the competent authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (called 'the Act'). The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Kanpur, vide impugned order dated January 23, 2004 (annexure 3 to the writ petition), exercising powers under Section 127(2) of the Act, transferred the assessment cases of the petitioners (particulars given in the schedule contained i...
Subhan Ali and anr. Vs. Salim Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2521
R.P. Yadav, J.1. This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) for enhancement of compensation, is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.2.2002, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special/Additional District Judge (E. C. Act), Hardoi partly allowing the claim petition filed by the appellants and awarding a sum of Rs. 58,000 as compensation with 8% per annum interest thereon.2. Appellants are the parents of Shri Ateeq Ahmad, who was aged about 16 years and had gone for attending coaching on 29.11.2000. While returning to his house on his cycle, he was dashed by a Jeep U.P. 32 Z 5703 and consequently sustained injuries. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Kachauna, in serious condition, from where, he was shifted to Medical College, Lucknow, but he succumbed to the injuries there in the Medical College.3. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation to the tu...
RafiquddIn Son of AzizuddIn and Vs. State of U.P. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1786
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.2. After investigation a final report was submitted by the police. Respondent No. 2 filed a I protest petition in which she did not aver any material other than which is contained in the case diary In the affidavit which was filed in support of the protest petition in paragraph 5 thereof was specifically stated that the accused he summoned on the basis of the material contained in the case diary. On the same tiasis the magistrate exercised the power under Section 190(i)(b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants. There is no illegality in the order passed by the magistrate as the magistrate was competent enough to take recourse to the said provision. In a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pakhando's case has laid down that if there is any material other than the investigation record only then the Magistrate is required to follow the procedure of a complaint case. Any other material means anything which has n...
Gopal Prasad Gupta S/O Late Ram Ratan Sahu Vs. State of U.P. Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2539
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. In both these writ petitions a common question of law regarding applicability of Rule 9-A of The U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (the Rules) is involved , hence we have heard both of them together and now we are deciding them by a common judgment.2. The facts relevant for disposal of both these writ petitions are that The U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 were amended by the 20th Amendment Rules on 7.8.1994 and Rule 9-A was added which provides for preference to certain class of persons in the matter of grant of mining leases. This amendment was challenged in a writ petition and was declared ultra-vires by. Full bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. State, of U.P. and Anr.' reported in (2001) 1 SAC page 475. A Special] Leave Petition was filed against this order before the Hon'ble Apex I Court. Later on this appeal was disposed of on 9.9.2002 on the under taking given by the State Government that no preference will be give...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »