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.
Sukhpal Son of Shri Ratan Singh, Vs. State of U.P. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2238
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Four applicants Sukhpal, Sanju alias Sanjeev, Jeete and Sonu, all the residents of village Kushawali, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut have invoked inherent power of this Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer of quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them being criminal case No. 521/9 of 2005 State v. Sukhpal and Ors. under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 392 IPC, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut. The ancillary prayer is for stay of further proceedings of the aforesaid case pendent lite.2. The factual matrix encapsulated, as is perceptible from the pleadings is that the respondent No. 2 Bhawar Singh filed an application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (application No. 182/2005) before the Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, district Meerut, Under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 392 IPC, with the allegation that he and the present applicants were the resident of village Kushawali. He was a farmer and peace-loving citizen, whereas the applica...
The Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association Through Its Treasurer, Sri Imran ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2156
Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath, JJ.1. We have head Sri Umesh Narain Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the petitioner at length on the question of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition.2. In the prayer clause of this writ petition, there are two prayers.3. The first prayer is that the respondents should be directed to forthwith entrust the management and control of the game of cricket in the State of Uttar Pradesh to the petitioner's association. The second prayer is for a mandamus directing the BCCI to forthwith recognise the petitioner's association as a controlling body of cricket in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both the prayers are misconceived as no present right to such effect has been shown.4. Accepting this situation, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is pressing this writ petition for a third prayer given below which has not been made in writing. Accord...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Moti Lal Chadami Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(All)122; [2007]290ITR29(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,00,641/- on account of interest and compensation on account of the acquisition of land could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee ?2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-Present reference relates to Assessment Year 1973-74. 3. Assessee was the owner of a factory known as Bimal Glass Works which he sold on 26.5.1991 to M/s Sri Veer Industries Delhi for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-. As agreed upon, out of the total sale consideration a sum of Rs. four lacs was received in cash at the time of execution of the sale deed and balance of Rs. 6,87,000/- (including the interest thereon) was to be paid to the assessee in instalments subsequently.4. The Collector, Agra, after aforesaid sale deed, pro...
Sri Shekhaer Bahuguna S/O Late Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Vs. Xvi Additio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1851
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjiv Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kripa Shanker Singh learned Counsel for the landlord respondent No. 4.2. This matter relates to house No. 16 Nyay Marg (12-B Hastings Road, Allahabad).3. According to learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner it contains eight rooms alongwith other amenities. According to the learned Counsel for the landlord respondent No. 4 apart from 8 rooms there are two verandahs also in the accommodation in dispute. The accommodation in dispute was allotted to late Sri Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna about 50 or 60 years before on rent of Rs. 60/- per month. According to learned Counsel for landlord late Sri H.N. Bahuguna had through mutual agreement enhanced the rent to Rs. 1500/-per month, which he paid until February 1989 (Sri H.N. Bahuguna died on 16.3.1989), Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that rent was not enhanced from Rs. 60 to Rs. 1500/- per month by lat...
Bijendra @ Virendra Son of Mukandi Lal, Vs. State of U.P. and Manoj Ku ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2253
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Can an accused be allowed to remain on the same bail bonds or furnish only fresh bail bonds for the offences triable by the court of sessions, if he was earlier granted bail for offences triable by the magistrate in the same crime number, is the question, which has been mooted in the present application for consideration by the applicants. As this question has burdened this Court regularly, therefore, it requires determination. But before adverting to the aforesaid question a resume of the facts.2. The informant Manoj Kumar lodged a FIR on 6.10.2005 at 10.40 A.M. at the police station Pahasu, district Bulandshahr, in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 6.10.2005 at 7.00 AM as crime No. 256 of 2005 Under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 IPC. Two sets of siblings were arrayed as accused. Rohit alias Chhotu and Gaurav are the sons of Shyam Lal and Veerendra, Kalyan Singh and Shyam Lal are the sons of Mukundi Lal and all were said to be armed with pharsa...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1814
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Triloki Nath. learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri A. K. Sachan advocate for the caveator-respondent.2. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10,2005 in S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 2000. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed bringing on record the written statement filed on behalf of the revisionist. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the revisionist-tenant on the allegation that the plaintiff is landlord and the defendant is tenant of the shop at the rent of Rs. 500 per month. The tenant was liable to pay the house and water tax in addition to the aforesaid rent. A notice determining the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent, house tax and water tax was sent through the counsel and served on the defendant-respondent on 12.6.2000. The revisionist failed to pay the amount due and also did not vacate the premises in question hence the suit. A written statem...
Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Smt. Chandra Kanta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2324
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, an applicant for impleadment in an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed the application for impleadment as one of the appellants on the ground that the petitioner is the widow of the original tenant (since deceased), Sant Ram and the respondent - landlords have deliberately not impleaded her as one of the respondents in the application under Section 21 of the Act and impleaded only other heirs of the deceased tenant.2. It is not disputed that Sant Ram, the original tenant, died before filing of application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act by the landlords. The proceedings remained pending before the prescribed authority since the year 2002 to 2005 and it is decided by the prescribed authority only in 2005 but no application for impleadment is filed by the petitioner nor any complaint has been made by any of the respondents that there is one more heir of the deceased tenant, namely, the pr...
Smt. Sahodra Devi and ors. Vs. Viiith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2526
Bharati Sapru, J.1. The controversy involved In the Writ Petition No. 15135 of 1991 and the connected Writ Petition No. 19175 of 1997 are almost Identical, as such both these writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment.2. This writ petition has been filed against the two concurrent judgments, one passed by the trial court on 17.3.1988 in Case No. 4/74 of 1982 arising out of execution Case No. 17 of 1981 dismissing the objection of the petitioners under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. and second judgment i.e., judgment dated 13.2.1991 passed in the Civil Appeal No. 311 of 1998 filed by the same petitioners.3. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Girja Devi Opposite Party No. 3 filed a suit for maintenance, which was allowed against her husband Shalig Ram. The suit was decreed in her favour and she sought to execute the same. In the claim petition filed by her, she mentioned two properties but house No. 66/42A, Kachhiyana Mohal, district Kanpur was not mentioned in the said plain...
Ram Pyare Singh Vs. Ram Govind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2538
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court has allowed an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 for impleadment, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The brief facts are that during the pendency of a suit for arrears of rent and eviction it appears that respondents 2 and 3 have purchased 2/3 share of the property in dispute by registered sale deed which is not disputed. An application for impleadment has been filed on behalf of these two persons which has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the revisional court which is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide afresh in case a fresh application is filed under Order I, Rule 10. Secondly, an application was filed by respondents 2 and 3 for i...
Awadhesh NaraIn Pandey, Assistant Teacher Markandeya Ucchatar Madhyami ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC2027
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Markandeya Higher Secondary School, Kaithi in Varanasi is a duly recognized and aided Intermediate College. In pursuance of a notice dated 12.11.19 pasted on the notice board of the institution, the petitioner applied for adhoc appointment on a L.T. Grade post and vide a appointment letter dated 24.11.1990 he joined the institution on the same day. It is alleged that the papers with regard to his selection/appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools. Varanasi vide covering letter dated 26.11.1990 As the salary was not being paid, he preferred writ petition No. 28858 of 1994 but the same was dismissed vide order and judgment dated 29.1.1994 holding that no appointment on a substantive vacancy could be made without following due procedure provided in the First Removal of Difficulties Orders framed under U.P. Higher Secondary Education Service Commission Act. 1985 However, the petitioner has filed this second writ petition o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »