Allahabad Court March 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.
Shambhu Nath Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All183; 2006(2)AWC1731
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition the order dated 21.2.2004, passed by the executing court and the other dated 30.1.2006, passed by the revisional court are under challenge. 3. A suit for specific performance of contract of the plaintiffs respondents was decreed by the trial court on 15.4.1978 and direction was given for the plaintiffs to deposit the remainder sale consideration of Rs. 7,000 within a period of two months. In pursuance to that, the respondents made deposit of all the aforesaid sum on 3.5.1978. Meanwhile the first appeal before the District Judge was filed, which was ultimately dismissed on 16.1.1979, wherein also a direction was given for depositing the remainder sale consideration of Rs. 7,000 within a period of one week. Since the amount aforesaid was already under deposit, the respondents did not make further deposit and meanwhile the second appeal before this Court was filed. This second appeal also met the same fate...
G.C. Suri Vs. CaptaIn N.R. Abbot and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1732
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 7.2.2006, passed by the revisional court and order dated 31.3.2005, passed by the trial court whereby the amendment application moved under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. has been partly allowed and partly rejected. 3. The learned Counsel contends that in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, the respondent-plaintiff pleaded that the premises have been vacated by the petitioner and in the written statement filed by the petitioner, it has been pleaded that he has been evicted from the premises by force. This written statement was filed on 18.8.1999 and after five years of such filing of written statement the petitioner moved an application praying for amendment, setting up his counter-claim for restitution of the possession. The learned Counsel has, thus, tried to emphasize that such counter-claim should be permitted to be incorporated in the written statement and the court...
Ram Ji and anr. Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3708
R.P. Yadav, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 3.4.1980, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as contained in Annexure-6 to the petition and the order dated 28.9.1977, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. Dispute relates to khata No. 436, having an area of 2 bighas and khata No. 486, having an area of 23 bighas, 16 biswas situated in village Ainjar, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur. In the basic year khatauni, khata No, 486 was recorded in the name of petitioners, Ram Ji and Shyam Ji, whereas khata No. 436 was recorded in the name of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3.3. It would be relevant to mention at this very stage that petitioner No. 2, Shyam Ji was minor and at the time of filing of the petition he was alleged to be aged about 11 years. Opposite party No. 1, Shri Shyam Lal died during the pendency of th...
Shakeel Son of Sri Mohammad Jameel (In Jail) Vs. Superintendent, Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2243
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 31.8.2005, passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The genesis was the arrest of the petitioner on 21.5.2005 by the police party when he was allegedly engaged with his associates in cutting electricity wire at about 11 P.M. A case crime No. 36 of 2005 under Section 379/411 I.P.C., P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar was registered against him. He was allegedly found to be involved in several other crimes, i.e. Crime No. s 30 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C., 34 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C., 36 of 2005, Under Section 379/411 I.P.C., 57 of 2005, Under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act, 67 of 2005, Under Section 379/411 I.P.C., 189 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C. and 213 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C..3. Counter an...
Etah GramIn Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)318; [2007]290ITR636(All)
1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Shakil Ahmad, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior advocate, assisted by Sri N. Mahajan, advocate on behalf of all the contesting respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. At the outset, preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, is being raised on behalf of the respondents, relying upon the decision in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector and Ors. : [2003]2SCR180 , wherein vide para 14 of the above reported judgment, apex Court observed....It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two Departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a Court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various Departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in co-ordinat...
Kali Charan Verma Son of Late Abhay Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1817
M.C. Jain, J.1. We have heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the respondents.2. The petitioner Kali Charan Verma is the father of one Narendra Singh, who allegedly went to Jyotiba Phule Nagar, leaving his house in the morning of 7.11.2000 but did not come back till late night. On enquiry, the petitioner and his daughter-in-law received information from some person of neighbourhood that Narendra Singh was taken in police custody by the police of P.S. Gairaula. Narendra Singh's wife filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 17257 of 2001 in which the following order was passed on 1.2.2002:Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband is missing from 7.11.2000 and her apprehension is that he has been taken away by the police of police station Gajraula, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar and possibly killed in a false encounter.Counter affida...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›