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.
Cantonment Board and anr. Vs. District Judge (incharge) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3281
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Controversy relates to interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether against an order issuing notice to defendants on an application for temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be maintainable is the question involved in the present writ petition?2. Plaintiffs opposite parties No. 2 to 6 had filed a Regular Suit No. 129 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Lucknow for permanent injunction. According to plaintiffs they are migrants from Pakistan and settled in this country during the partition years. The Government of India had rehabilitated them in various parts of the country. According to plaintiff respondents, the Cantonment Board had allotted to plaintiffs family the shops in question. They have got certain gumties on Nehru Road near Sadar Bazar Chauraha, Cantonment Lucknow, alleged to be allotted to th...
Kewal Krishna Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Iiird A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2874
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 Rakesh Kumar on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 50 of 1982.2. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 50 per month.3. Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawaii, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 28.2.1983. dismissed the release application against which landlord filed R. C. Appeal No. 149 of 1983. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 26.5.1986, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority with the result that release application stood allowed hence this writ petition by the tenant.4. Release application was filed against three persons, i.e., Kewal Krishna Om Prakash, Kewal Krishna and Om Prakash. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Kewal Krishna Om Prakash and Kewal Krishna. Om Prakash the real...
Abdul Sattar Vs. Ram Rakshpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3364
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri P.P. Srivastava, senior advocate assisted by Sri Suneet Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K.M. Garg, advocate for the plaintiff-respondent.2. An objection has been raised at the very outset regarding maintainability of this second appeal by Sri K.M. Garg on the ground that the appeal was instituted by a dead person. Sri P.P. Srivastava appearing for the defendant-appellant has brought to my notice the relevant dates relating to the present second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a Suit No. 134 of 1989 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 500 per month along with 18% Interest. The trial court decreed the suit in part, for recovery of possession and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 20 per month with 18% interest per annum. The defendant-appellant preferred an appeal vide' Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2003 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dat...
Hari Mohan Das Tandon and ors. Vs. U.P. Export Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3373
ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri P.P. Srivastava, senior advocate assisted by Smt. Tulika Prakash and Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist and counsel for the U. P. Export Corporation Ltd.2. The plaintiff-revisionist instituted a suit for eviction vide Suit No. 12 of 1997 before the learned District Judge, Allahabad. The defendant M/s. U.P. Export Corporation Ltd. was the tenant of a portion of building No. 142/32 (old No. 24), Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month besides taxes. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 1.5.1997 served on the defendant on 7.5.1997. The U.P. Export Corporation filed their written statement. The plaintiff Hari Mohan Das Tandon was examined as P.W. 1 on 18.7.2001. The plaintiffs evidence was closed thereafter. The defendant examined Amarjeet Singh as D.W. 1 on 30.5.2002 and Rajendra Kumar Chug as D.W. 2 on 6.7.2002. Subsequently, on 27.8.2002 an application was filed by the defendant for a...
Mahesh Chandra Sharma and anr. Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3393
S.U. Khan, J.1. Original respondent No. 3 Sardar Kartar Singh, since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed S.C.C. Suit No. 67 of 1988 against Chaturbhuj Das since deceased and survived by petitioners before J.S.C.C., Mathura. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff was the owner landlord of the house In dispute and defendant was tenant thereof at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. It was further alleged that rent had not been paid for a very long time. Relief of eviction on the ground of default and recovery of rent was sought in the plaint. Original defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and stated that Smt. Attar Kaur mother of the plaintiff had donated the house in dispute to him and there was no question of payment of rent. In para 2 of the plaint, it had been stated that rent note was also written by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.2. As defendant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had claimed his own ownership h...
Manoj Singh and ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3041
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. This writ petition has been heard and disposed of in the open Court today. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows:Heard Mohammad Saeed, learned Counsel for the petitioners, tenants and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, landlord.2. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 23.6.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate in Case No. 7 of 2000 under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Unnao in Rent Revision No. 55 of 2004.3. It emerges from record that on 18.10.2000, the landlord, Aditya Prakash Sharma, respondent No. 3, had filed a release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act against the petitioners before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Unnao, seeking release of the premises, House No. 779, Mohalla Kalyani Devi (Ci...
AchIn JaIn Son of Ashok Jain, Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms Society an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2846
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that Dhampur Mahila Shiksha Sabha Dhampur Bijnor was registered as Society, which has been renewed from time to time and the petitioners are life members having deposited their membership fee in the year December 2001 and December 2002.2. According to the petitioner the list of the members of the General Body of 363 members was approved by Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, U.P. Moradabad, but it did not contain the names of 37 members including the 4 petitioners.3. It is also alleged that the name of 111 members has been illegally included in the name who were neither members nor their membership fee was deposited. The inclusion of the names of 111 members is already challenged by one Shri Kanta Prasad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75062 of 2005, which is pending.4. Admittedly an election programme was published by B.D.O., respondent No. 2 fixing 28.2.2006 for receiving nomination papers and 1.3.2006 for deposit of nomin...
Maharaji Educational Trust No. 1 Through Its Secretary and ors. Vs. Pu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2851
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner-Trust had taken a loan from the respondent-Punjab & Sind Bank, which could not be repaid within time. Initially negotiations for one time settlement were going on between the petitioners and the Bank, which could not fructify and hence the Bank filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Dues due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The application of the Bank was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 25.8.2005 and recovery for a sum of over Rs. 26 crores was directed against the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, alongwith an application under Section 21 of the Act for waiver of the deposit to be made with the appeal. By an order dated 10.1.2006 the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the application and directed that the appeal of the petitioners be entertained on their depositing a sum of Rs. 5 crores within two mon...
Committee of Managing, Harijan Gurukul and Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2209
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.04.2004 (Annexure 5) to the writ petition passed by the Assistant. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Mau and claimed the following reliefs:(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.4.2004 (Annexure 5) passed by the opposite party No. 2.(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as office bearers of the Society and in managing the affairs of the Society as well as that of the School run by the Society except in accordance with law.(iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.(iv) to award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The dispute ...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2870
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.02.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Hapur, district Ghaziabad in Civil Revision No. 8 of 2000, Nand Kishore and Ors. v. Dharamveer and Ors. and also to quash the order dated 16.02.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hapur, district Ghaziabad in suit No. 192 of 1997, Dharamveer v. Nand Kishore.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:3. Dharamveer Singh, respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 192 of 1997, Dharamveer Singh v. Nand Kishore and Ors. in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hapur, district Ghaziabad on 29.05.1997 for the relief namely 'A decree be passed to cancel the will dated 06.09.1978, registered on 08.09.1978 executed by late Kripa Ram in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5 in collusion with the defendants No. 6 to 7.' The subject matter of dispute was of bhumadhari land, originally belongs to one Ram Vilas. Ram Vilas had four sons, namely,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »