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.
Gaya DIn and ors. Vs. Incharge Sessions and District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3705
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a Regular Suit No. 152 of 2000, Gayadeen v. Smt. Phulla Devi and Ors. for permanent injunction with a prayer to restrain Smt. Phulla Devi not to interfere with the disputed property. Subsequently, another regular suit was filed, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000, Smt. Phulla Devi v. Gaya Deen for cancellation of registered Will in question. Accordingly, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for staying proceeding of the Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000. The trial court as well as revisional court had declined to stay the proceeding of the subsequent suit on the ground that the cause of action of both the suits are not identical.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in Ram Narain v. Ram Swarup and Ors. : AIR1962All108 (V 49 C 30), followed by another judgment in Smt. Meena v. Sri Krishna Kumar and Anr. : 2000(1)AWC786 , and submits that the controver...
Sangeeta Wife of Sanjai Alias Babla Daughter of Shaila Nath Vs. Sanjai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3344
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned orders passed by the courts below petitioner's obligation for impleading certain amendment in her written statement was refused.3. The respondent's husband filed a divorce petition before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in the year 1998. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent's husband moved an application for the custody of two sons, who were with their mother. After considering the whole aspect of the matter, the trial court found that the custody of children should be given to their father and accordingly the application was allowed vide Annexure No. SA-2 to this petition.4. The petitioner, however, did not seek any remedy further against that order before the appellate or revisional court. Subsequently, she has moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment to add certain facts about the children, who are presently in custody of their father. The statement of fact proposed to b...
Anwar Mohammad Khan Son of Sri Niyamatullah Khan Vs. Sri Taj Mohammad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2166
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddarth Verma & Sri Pulak Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- defendant and Sri M.A.Qadeer & Mr. D.S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs.2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 6 of 2005 allowing interim injunction application of the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing, marketing and trading the Khaini and Tobacco with the name and style of 'Bargad Fed Chhap Asali Nawab Dulha Khan'.3. The facts of the case in brief are that one Niyamat Ullaha Khan was running his business of Tobacco and Khaini under the trademark in the name and style of 'Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini' and when he died in 1992 his sons started the ...
Asha Ram Misra Son of Sri Badra Prasad Misra and ors. Vs. the Joint Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3002
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.8.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in exercise of power under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'), remanding the proceedings back to the Consolidation Officer.2. The facts are that after finalisation of proceedings under Section 9 as well as Section 20 of the Act an application was moved by opposite party No. 2 that he has not been provided 'chak nali' for irrigation of plot Nos. 257 & 259 included in his chak from his tubewell installed over his second chak No. 413 and as such he may be provided the same through plot No. 256. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 1.1.1983 directed the Consolidation Officer to submit a report after making an inquiry and to send a proposal in case 'chak nali' has not been provided. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.1....
Girraj Singh Vs. Brijesh Goswami and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3527
Umeshar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's application as third party for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit was dismissed by the trial court, and his revision before the District Judge was also dismissed.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that he along with the plaintiff jointly resides in a premises about which the suit for temporary injunction against respondent defendant, was refused, Subsequent to the filling of the suit, the petitioner's brother became disinterested and Therefore, occasion arose for the petitioners to move the Court under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as plaintiff. That prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the present plaintiff/respondent No. 64. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the prayer of the petitioner should have been accepted by the court despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 was opposing the prayer.5. ...
Sudarshan Yadav Son of Sahati Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2770a
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned Advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri D.N. Shukla, learned Advocate assisted by Sri L.N. Shukla, learned Advocate in opposition thereof.2. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2005 and 1.6.2005 (annexure No. 2 and 1 respectively).3. There is no dispute about certain facts and, therefore, they may be summarised in brief for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition.4. In the allotment of chak proceedings, against an order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.12.2004 respondent No. 2 to 5 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was numbered as revision No. 697 of 2005. In this revision, the revisionists impleaded 59 private respondents. A copy of the ground of revision has been annexed as annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the revision respo...
Raj Pal Singh Son of Jhamman Singh Vs. the Collector,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2900
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has claimed the following relief when the petition was initially filed: -(i) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount of Rs. 1,99,821.10 from respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 8.9.1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 within some fixed period of time in execution of Award dated 20.9.95 passed by the Labour Court (II) U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 39/92.(ii) Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner.(iii) Award costs of the writ petition and counsel's fee to the petitioner.2. An award dated 20.9.1993 was made by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner which was challenged by respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 2,0168 of 1994. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 having been dismissed vide judgment and ord...
Rajesh Kumar Nishad Son of Late Sri Ram Lkhan Nishad Vs. Nagar Nigam a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR951]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay him minimum pay scale as is admissible to the regular employee working on the post of 'Dom' in Viddyut Shav Dah Grih, Allahabad. It has also been prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of 'Dom' as six posts of 'Dom' are vacant in Nagar Nigam, Allahabad.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is continuously working on the post of 'Dom' in Viddyut Shav Dah Grih, Allahabad on daily wages basis since 3.3.1994,3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of 'Dom' on daily wage basis for the last more than 12 years and that the respondents may be directed to regularize his services. He further submits that since the petitioner is discharging the duties of a regular employee, as such he is entitled for minimum...
Shekhar Bahuguna Vs. Xvith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3341
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of an Hon'ble single Judge dated the 14.2.2006.2. It is an order passed In a writ matter. The writ petition was filed by the tenant Bahuguna, who prayed therein for complete stoppage of all proceedings before the Judge Small Causes Court and the Rent Controller in regard to the appellant's eviction in suit No. 6 of 1992 and two other cases related thereto being Nos. 94 of 1991 and 29 of 1992.3. The brief facts are that the deceased father of the tenant one Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna was a tenant in the premises in question originally and the tenancy had commenced 60-70 years ago. The original tenant died on 16.3.1989 and his widow and the writ petitioner, being one of his surviving sons, continued to live In the tenanted premises.4. On the basis of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the writ petitioner made an application before the Rent Contro...
Mehndi Hasan Son of Lais Mohammad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2770
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ pennon is directed against the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, allowing revision and making certain amendment in Chak of the petitioner and contesting Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the proceeding of allotment of Chak.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that Opposite Party No. 4 filed a time barred appeal against an order dated 25.8.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer, which was allowed and Chak of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 4 was altered, against which Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a revision which was allowed and petitioner's Chak was disturbed. It is important to note from the record that petitioner's Chak was not disturbed upto Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. Opposite party No. 2 preferred revision against an order dated 5.2.2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation 'I hough, petitioner's Chak was not disturbe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »