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.
Raja Ram and Ram Lagan Both Sons of Ram Asharay Vs. Deputy Director of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3225
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. In this petition, challenge is to the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Deputy Directory consolidation, Sidharthnagar in revision whereby order dated 28.11.2001 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sidharthnagar in Appeal No. 622 and 623 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was affirmed.2. The dispute revolves round plot Nos. 159 admeasuring 1/0-034, 159 admeasuring 2/0-082, 137 admeasuring 2/0-044, and 209 admeasuring 2/0-053 situated in village Bishanupur Ahedmali, Tappa-Chawara, Pargana Basi East, District Sidharthnagar. It would appear that in the basic year Awadu, Parushram, and Pachu sons of Kalpa Veva Vindashvaree were recorded as Bhumidhars. To begin with, an objection was filed by Pachu and other contesting Opp. parties 3 to 6 seeking division of the land in dispute on the ground that Kalpa was spirited away by death and her property had devolved upon them. Another set of objection was filed by petitioners claiming rights o...
Dudhnath Ram, Sahayak Wasil Baki Navis (A.W.B.N.) Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2876
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This special appeal, under the rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 20.1.2006 in writ petition No. 53729 of 2003 dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision to constitute screening committee and the order to retire him compulsorily under Fundamental Rules 56(c) are arbitrary and perverse inasmuch as the same proceeded only on the fact that the appellant was absent unauthorizedly from 1.1.2003 without any leave application although during the said period he was on duty and was paid salary also for the said period. He submits that the Hon'ble Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact correctly and, therefore, the judgment, under appeal, is liable to be set aside.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The petitioner-appellant was working as clerk in t...
Ram Avtar S/O Chhotey Lal Vs. the Divisional Manager, the New India As ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1981
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of correctness of the impugned order dated 29.11.2005. By the aforesaid order the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers under Rule 30(IV) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 as amended from time to time, imposed the penalty of 'Removal from Service which is not to be disqualification for future employment' as provided under Rule 23(g) of the aforesaid Rules.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner Shri Ram Avtar, Senior Assistant proceeded on sanctioned leave from 23.9.98 to 30.11.98. After expiry of leave, he did not join his duties on 1.12.98. The then Divisional Manager, Noida informed the petitioner that he would be treated on unauthorized leave/absence w.e.f. 1.12.98 and, therefore, should join his duties immediately. Even after issuance of the said letter, the petitioner did not resume ...
Giriraj Kapoor Son of Late Sri N.C. Kapoor and Vs. Government of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2287
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 14.12.2001 and 05.02.2001 and the Order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 of Governor General-in-Council.2. The notice dated 14th December, 2001 has been issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India for and on behalf of the President of India and mentions that the land comprising site of Bungalow No.l, Elgin Road, bearing General Land Register (hereinafter called 'G.L.R.') Survey No. 214, New Cantonment, Allahabad measuring 3.20 acres (hereinafter called the 'premises in dispute') belongs to the President of India and is held by the petitioners on Old Grant terms as set out in the Governor General-in-Council's Order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 under which the Government is entitled to resume the land and that the Government has decided to resume the said government land and obtain possession of the structures -standing thereon upon payment of compensation for the authorised structures as per the terms of the...
Aditya Shukla Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2311
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, an allottee of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority dated 22nd October 2005 whereby the revisional authority allowed the revision filed by the landlord against the order rejecting the release application filed by the landlord and directing release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord consequent to vacancy declared in the accommodation in question. This release application has been rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by its order dated 18th August 2005 whereby direction was given to proceed with the allotment of the accommodation in accordance with law. The land lord-respondent aggrieved by this order dated 18th August, 2005 filed a revision i.e...
Har Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2633
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri Ram Autar Varma, holding brief of Sri R. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment of Hon'ble single Judge dated 20.2.2006, passed in Civil. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10311 of 2006.3. It appears that a sum of Rs. 53,234 was due against the appellant. Consequently, a recovery proceeding was initiated. Aggrieved appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition challenging the recovery proceeding. The Hon'ble single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition after recording a finding that the petitioner has not placed on record any proof in respect of payment of entire amount within the period of nine years towards the said loan which was to the tune of rupees one lac. The Hon'ble single Judge has further observed on the basis of own averment of the petitioner-appellant that the loan which was to be paid by 1996, has not been paid in time and therefore, he de...
Suomoto Action Taken by the Court Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Through Its Chai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All239; 2006(2)AWC1687
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.1. This is a reference made by an order of an Hon'ble Division Bench passed on the 9th of September, 2005.2. The reference was made in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2005. In the first two paragraphs of the referring judgment, their Lordships said as follows:-Today we have dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition No. 58318 of 2005: Rakesh Mehta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. as infructuous.From the averments made in the petition and supplementary affidavit filed by ICICI Bank Ltd., some questions of larger public importance have arisen. This Court cannot lose sight of day to day happenings in the society. Therefore, we have taken suo motu cognizance of the matter on the facts that have been brought on record in the aforesaid Habeas Corpus Petition and Supplementary Affidavit.3. In the concluding portion where the reference was ordered, their Lordships said as follows:-Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that this...
Santoshi Lal Son of Sri Bhagwan Das Vs. Ist Additional District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1676
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord respondent No. 3 Mohd. Shafi on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Case No. 1 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed authority, Shikohabad district Mainpuri. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 20/- per month. At the time of the filing of the release application landlord had four sons Shamshad Irshad, Mohd. Nazim and Mohd. Kazim. Prescribed Authority through judgement and order dated. 27.4.1985 rejected the release application. Against the said judgement and order original landlord Mohd. Shafi filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1985: Before the Appellate Court landlord admitted that two of his sons Shamshad and Irshad had been allotted a shop hence shop in dispute was required only for himself. The appellate Court found that landlord had no shop, hence his need was bona fide. This finding was perf...
Sri Rajan Nishad S/O Sri Lalloo Nishad and Vs. State of U.P. Through P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1950
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In all these four writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 17.1.2006 issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, by which applications have been invited for grant of mining lease in respect of sand for a period of three years for the vacant areas mentioned therein and separate orders dated 23.11.2005 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad, cancelling the sanction/approval dated 31.3.2001 regarding grant of lease in favour of the petitioners.2. As the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions are being heard and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of Court.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:-4. According to the petitioners, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an...
Mukeem Ullah Son of Late Sri Naim Ullah, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2606
Shiv Shanker, J.1. These Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners Mukeem Ullah, Mabood Alam, Asgar Ali & Bahaluddin and Raju Kachhwah & Munna Kachhwah praying to quash the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 118 A of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307 and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mau Aima, District Allahabad and Case Crime No. C-35 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 308, 203 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2) V SC/ST Act, P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur and stay the arrest of the petitioners.2. Affidavit and supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners and counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties have been filed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9225 of 2005.3. Brief facts of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9225 of 2005 are that one Ram Kumar s/o Baijnath Patel, resident of village Chhitemau, P.S. Mau Aima, District Allahabad submitted a written report at the concerned police station on 23.8.2005 at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »