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.
Harish Tandon Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2829
Amitava Lala, J.1. This case is made out basically for conversion of leasehold 'nazul' land to freehold land along with various other reliefs. Therefore, let us first of all know what is 'nazul'?' 'Nazul' means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. It means properties i.e., land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated or lapsed to the Government. In further, in absence of appropriate heir, the appropriate State or the Government of India in an appropriate case became the owner of the land. Article 296 of the Constitution of India speaks about the property accruing by escheat or lapse or as an bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner.2. Originally the writ petition was filed by the petition...
New India Fertilizers and anr. Vs. A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3698
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed an interim order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Barabanki while adjudicating the S.C.C. No. 1 of 2004, Smt. Kavlta Gupta v. New India Fertilizers. A suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute was Instituted by the landlord, Smt. Kavita Gupta before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Barabanki. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and an amendment was sought by the landlord on 12.4.2005 to which objections were filed by the tenant-petitioners. The amendment was allowed after inviting objections from the tenant. A legal plea was taken by the landlord that the premises in question is not covered under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and since the monthly rent was Rs. 4,490 the provisions of Sections 24 and 30 of Rent Control and Eviction Act, are not applicable. ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahboob and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC513
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') has been brought against the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), Meerut whereby awarding Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by Mr. Mehboob, the petitioner No. 1. It is said that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the materials on record. It is a case of a head-on collision between the Bus No. 15-D/1735, attached with UPSRTC under contract, and another UPSRTC Bus and so the liability between the vehicles ought to have been approportioned in the ratio of 50:50. The learned Trial Court committed error while isolating the liability against the appellant alone. It is also said that the amount of compensation could be given according to the me...
Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Edd) and ors. V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2487; [2006(110)FLR320]
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This is a transfer matter. In the writ Court the Hon'ble Single Judge on the 3rd of January, 2006 has passed an order quashing the transfer order and allowing the appellant to transfer the writ petitioner to some other place as directed by the first Court.2. The appellant takes a preliminary objection that the writ Court should not have interfered in the transfer matter at all because of an order passed by Supreme Court of India on 24.2.2005 in Writ Petition (C) No. 79 of 1997 (Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, U.P.S.E.B. and Ors.).3. In that order the Court commenced monitoring transfer of employees of some eight Power Corporations so as to enforce transparency therein.4. The following five specific directions were:1. No Minister of the State of U.P. nor any Government Officer shall interfere with the transfers postings of the officers in any of the Corporations named above.2. All postings transfers of the officers staff of the aforesaid Co...
Sant Gadge Seva Niketan, Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Secretary, Mahi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1956
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for disbursing the amount under a non-statutory contract. The Supreme Court has time and again examined this issue and observed that a writ petition does not lie for recovery of an amount under a contract and even though a Statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions but disputes arising out of the terms of such contracts have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract and the fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body does not affect the principles to be applied. It has also been emphasised that such a contract is not a statutory contract and the disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, whether any amount is due or not and refusal to pay it is justif...
Smt. Indira Devi W/O Jamuna Prasad Manager, Committee of Management Ka ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3521
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.2. It is alleged that Society Sri Kalicharan Shiksha Samiti village Rampur P.O. Bhangara, Aligarh was registered which runs Kali Charan Kanya Primary School recognized by Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The school has been granted temporary status up to Junior High School.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh by which he has permitted for opening of a new Junior High School in village Rampur under Sarva Shiksha Yojana 2005-2006.4. The petitioner submitted an application/objection to the District Magistrate inter-aila, that the State Government has approved of opening of Junior High School in rural areas in villages where there is no Junior High School in the radius of 3 kms i.e. which are unserved villages but in village Rampur the society of the petitioner is already running the aforesaid Junior High School since 1998. It is urged that the proposal of the B.S.A. to o...
Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Shri Imran Son ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3486
A.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. AI Fahim Meat Export Private Limited through its Director (Imran Son of Haji Yaqoob Qureshi) along with one Mazhar Mahmood (Son of Anwar Mahmood) of Meerut City U.P., Petitioner No. 1 and 2 respectively, have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash impugned Advertisement dated 6-12-2004 published by Respondent No. 2- Nagar Nigam, Meerut (Called- The Nigam) in daily news paper inviting sealed tenders from persons interested to run its existing 'Slaughter House', situate on Hapur Road within the territorial limits of The Nigam after expiry of the term of previous lease, i.e. 30-12-2003, (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition), to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Nigam not to proceed in pursuance to the impugned advertisement, to issue as usual a Writ of general nature and to award the costs.2. To appreciate respective contentions of the parties we may re-recapitulate the pl...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhuvnesh Dutta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC499
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials on record.2. This appeal has been brought against the award dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addi District Judge, Court No. 6 Gautam Budh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 47/01 whereby awarding compensation in the tune of Rs. 50,000 together with interest @ 10%. It is said that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record. Claimant himself was rashly and negligently driving the cycle. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) cannot be held liable for the rash and negligent act of the claimant himself. The learned Tribunal has given undue importance on the evidence including the medical bills furnished by the claimant when those bills were also not true. Even the oral evidence adduced by the parties was not appreciated in correct perspective. It is also said that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000 t...
Mahendra Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Virendra Pratap Singh (Deceased) an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2567
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.C. Chauhan for appellants and Shri Sankatha Rai for respondents.2. The substitution application No. 217329 of 2005 for recording the death of appellant No. 1 and for bringing his legal heirs on record is allowed.3. The application for recalling the order dated 28.10.2005 is also allowed. The Second Appeal is restored to its original number, and was heard.4. This defendants' Second Appeal arises out of Suit for recovery and possession over the disputed house and agricultural land and for restraining the defendants from realizing the compensation and rehabilitation bonds in respect of zamindari property of Surendra Pratap Singh. The Suit was decreed on 23.12.1967. The Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1968 arising thereof was partly allowed by the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 16.12.1977 only in respect of Suit for relief of possession over the well and Bagiya towards South of the ...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1723
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Order impugned and assailed in this writ petition is dated 29.10.2005, passed by Tahsildar Hathras District Judge Hathras in Case No. 1162 of 2005 instituted under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act.2. The starting point of the case was the application filed on 13.9.2005 before the Tahsildar by Opposite Party No. 2 for mutation of her name in place of Ghanshyam Das Poddar in the revenue record qua the property known as Jamuna Bagh situated in village Garhi Tamna District Hathras-founding her claim on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 7.2.1999, allegedly executed by Ghan Shyam Poddar. It would further appear that pursuant to the application for mutation, notices were issued fixing 17.10.20O5. Thereafter the case suffered adjournments on 18.11.2005, 28.11.2005, 8.12.2005, 11.12.2005, 28.12.2005, 6.1.2006, 16.1.2006, 21.1.2006, 2.2.2006, and 7.2.2006 and lastly the date fixed in the case is indicated to be 18.2.2006. As stated supra, since challenge in this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »