Allahabad Court April 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.
Sri Ram Pandey S/O Late Tribhuvan Pandey Vs. Senior Superintendent of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR86]
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition arises out of the impugned order dated 19.3.2002 by which respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner who was working as Diwan in the police department died on 12.6.1978 while in active service. The petitioner was born after about six months from the date of the death of his father. The petitioner passed his High School Examination in the year 1995 and Intermediate in 1997. The petitioner is the only son of late Sri Tribhuwan Pandey. As soon as the petitioner became major and completed 18 years of age, an application supported by an affidavit was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Varansi to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. On the basis of the aforesaid application, the Superintendent of Police has recommended the case of the pe...
Raj Dhar and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) and Bho ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2593a
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6th March, 2006, passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur allowing revision of Opp. party No. 2.2. The matter relates to mutation on the death of Sunri.3. It transpires from the record that on the basis of an ex parte report submitted by Revenue Inspector/Supervisor Kanungo, petitioners' names were entered into revenue records in exercise of power under Section 33-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Thereafter contesting Opp. party No. 2 also filed an application for mutation claiming possession on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Sunri. This application was rejected by Additional Tehsildar and by the Appellate authority. A revision preferred against said orders was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Mutation authority to decide the same on merits in accordance with law.4. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.5. Learned Couns...
Ram Shanker Shukla (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ganesh Sewa Ashram Sanstha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3050
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This second appeal is on behalf of heirs and legal representatives of Shri Ram Shanker who died during the pendency of appeal in the court below and was a defendant in Suit No. 323 of 1998 instituted by the sole respondent for mandatory injunction and damages directing the defendant to vacate the accommodation in his possession and to pay the damages for use and occupation of the premises in question.2. The facts which are now not in dispute is that Ram Shanker Shukla, the defendant was employed as a manager by the plaintiff and in the course of employment the defendant was given possession of certain accommodation. The defendant retired on 30.6.1994, but has failed to vacate the accommodation which was given to him as part of his employment. According to the plaintiff on 21.5.1997, the defendant illegally trespassed over another hall towards East situate on the second floor of the building of plaintiff.3. Suit No. 323 of 1998 was instituted claiming relief of man...
Ram Shankar Shukla (D) by Lrs. Vs. Ganesh Sewa Ashram Sanstha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All336
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. This second appeal is on behalf of heirs and legal representatives of Shri Ram Shanker who died during the pendency of appeal in the Court below and was a defendant in suit No. 323 of 1998 instituted by the sole respondent for mandatory injunction and damages directing the defendant to vacate the accommodation in his possession and to pay the damages for use and occupation of the premises in question.2. The facts which are now not in dispute are that Ram Shanker Shukla, the defendant was employed as a manager by the plaintiff and in the course of employment the defendant was given possession of certain accommodation. The defendant retired on 30th June, 1994 but has failed to vacate the accommodation which was given to him as part of his employment. According to the plaintiff on May 21st, 1997 the defendant illegally trespassed over another hall towards East situate on the second floor of the building of plaintiff.3. Suit No. 323 of 1998 was instituted claimin...
ishwar Dutt Dwivedi Vs. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1653
Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. This petition of the year 1989 challenges the demand of enhanced amount towards the price of the house allotted to the petitioner by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, hereinafter referred to as the Parishad.2. The U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, a body created under the provisions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, floated a scheme Own a house under self-financing Scheme in October, 1984. The registration book-let provided types of houses, area of the land, plinth area, estimated cost of the house and the registration fee for Type-IV houses, the cost of which house is the subject matter of consideration in the present writ petition. Type-IV house was to have an area of land of 108.50 metres, out of which built-up area was 40.40 metres and estimated cost was Rs. 65,000 and registration fee was Rs. 7,000. The petitioner, being an eligible prospective allottee, applied for registration of Type-IV house with the Parishad.3. The relevant paragrap...
Sharad Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR630]
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.P.Srivastava, and Sri G.S. Khare, learned counsel for the State.2. The petitioner, Sharad Kumar Verma, was selected through the Combined Provincial Services Examination conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad on the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. He joined his services at Varanasi on 24.4.1990 and since the year 1991 the petitioner was given charge of Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Banda. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties on different posts and was handed over four additional charges during the period 1995 to 1998. 3. On 22.8.1998 while the petitioner was working in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Jaunpur as Finance and Accounts Officer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 27.8.1998. He made a representation requesting for supply of certain documents on 12.10.1998 and since the copies were not supplie...
Jai Singh Yadav Son of Sri Ram Pher Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Through It ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3378
Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath, JJ.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Excise Commissioner, U.P., dated 17th March 2006 (Annexure-5) directing opening of a foreign liquor shop in the area known as Bandhawa Bazar in district Pratapgarh. It is alleged that this area where the shop is proposed to be opened is within 5 kilometers of the border of Pratapgarh and its adjoining district i.e., Jaunpur.3. The challenge is based upon Rule 5(9) of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1958. For ready reference the said sub-rule is reproduced below:No licenses for the retail sale of liquor within 5 Km., of the border of another District shall be granted except when the Collector of both the District concur, if they failed to concur, the matter shall be referred to Excise Commissioner whose decision thereon, shall be final.4. According to the petitioner's interpretation, the aforesaid sub-rule means tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›