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.
Parshuram Son of Doodhnath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3024
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the respondent No. 3.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.3. The dispute relates to khata No. 245 situate in village Sikandarpur District Ballia.4. An objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.3.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner the appeal was transferred to the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Mau and came to be decided by order dated 1.2.2006. The respondents preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia against the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation District Mau. The p...
Mohd. Ismil Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3395
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri K. K. Dubey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Jee Saxena appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that landlord respondents No. 2 to 6 filed S.C.C. suit against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment from the shop In dispute. The suit was contested by the tenant-petitioner by filing written statement. The trial court framed following 5 issues :(i) Whether shop in dispute was constructed in 1984 and if yes, its effect?(ii) Whether service of notice is sufficient?(iii) Whether tenant is entitled to the benefit of Sections 39 and 20(4) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972?(iv) Whether the suit is maintainable?(v) Any other relief.3. Both the parties led evidence on the basis of which, the trial court held that shop was constructed In 1984 and is not within the purview of the Act XIII of 1972, the tenant-petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Sections 39 and 20(4) of the Act and d...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Murari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ791
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This first appeal from order has been filed against the award dated 17.1.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Etawah (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal').2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 27.5.2000 at 7 a.m., one Longshree, while crossing the road to fetch water from a well, met an accident with truck No. URN 9516 which was being driven rashly and negligently and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver. His documents were seized and after holding the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver for rash and negligent driving under Section 279 read with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. The husband of the said deceased, Krishna Murari had filed a claim petition, being the Claim Petition No. 377 of 2000 under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') impleading one Rajesh Kumar Jain as defendant No. 1 in the case, who was insured...
Smt. Sheela Devi W/O Shri Swarup NaraIn Bijoria Vs. Swarup NaraIn Bijo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC35
R.C. Deepak, J.1. Heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no dispute that the applicant Smt. Sheela Devi is not the legally wedded wife of opposite party/Swarup Narain Bijoria. It is also not in dispute that Swarup Narain Bijoria was not posted as Junior Engineer in Nirman Khand Mirzapur at the time of refusal of maintenance allowance. He was drawing salary as per service rules.3. The matter under dispute was whether opposite party Swarup Narain Bijoria remarried another woman Shashi and the applicant was having sufficient means of her livelihood and she refused to have the company of her husband without any reasonable cause. The courts below refused to award maintenance allowance to her on the ground that she was engaged in preparing Biri and was earning handsome amount and she refused to live with her husband without any reasonable cause.4. N...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. State Food and Essential Commo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(All)380; [2006]285ITR152(All)
A.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that an appeal lay against the order under Section 139(9) before the First Appellate Authority under Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating the order under Section 139(9) as virtually an order under Section 143(3) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the C.I.T. (A) setting aside the order passed under Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act and directing the Assessing Officer to frame an assessment? 2. Assessment year 1989-90 is involved in the present reference. On 29th December, 1989 the assessee filed a return of loss of Rs....
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Harnandi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2216
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. This is plaintiffs revision of ordinal Suit No. 52 of 1998 in which the opposite party is the defendant.2. The Revision No. 413 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 8th March. 1998 by which the trial court rejected the application No. 68C of the plaintiff to hear and decide question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.3. Civil Revision No. 427 of 2002 is directed against the order of 3rd of April, 1999, rejecting the application No. 70C of the plaintiff whereby the court below has refused to frame two additional issues as proposed by the plaintiff.4. Suit No. 52 of 1998 giving rise to the present revision has been filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff Union of India is the owner in possession of new plot Nos. 439, 440, 421, 422 and 417 in village Doyami Park, Tehsil Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, the Northern Railway, Moradabad Division was earlier known as East ...
Balram Singh Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3367
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This review application is made beyond the period without formulation of grounds and without appropriate court fees. When it has been pointed out. the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted leave to grant time to put the court fees and formulate the grounds of review.2. At this Juncture we have gone through the Allahabad High Court Rules about the application for review. Chapter V. Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules prescribes procedure for making application for review. We find therein that the first part of the Rule 12 is relevant for the purpose. Therefore, the said part is quoted hereunder :.An application for the review of a judgment shall be presented to the Registrar, who shall endorse thereon the date when It is presented and lay the same as early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered along with an office report as to limitation and sufficiency of court fees. If such Judge or Judges or any one or m...
Committee of Management Sumitra Seva Sansthan Through Its Manager Shai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3444
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. It is alleged that the elections of the Committee of Management have been held on 12.6.2002 by the respondent No. 3 and the list of membership of the committee of Management of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Registrar on 18.8.2004.3. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Registrar, writ petition No. 41133 of 2005 has been filed by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, which was allowed directing the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. Consequently the Assistant Registrar referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 7.6.2005. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application before the Prescribed Authority to initiate a criminal proceeding under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. against Shri Ran Vijay Singh for committing forgery in respect of the publication of the election schedule in newspapers.4. It appears that when the writ petition was filed by Shri Ran Vijay Si...
Prabha Shanker Shukla, Son of Sankatha Prasad Vs. Shri Kant Tiwari Son ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC853; 2008ACJ1133; 2006(2)AWC1855
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the insured (owner of the vehicle) against the Award dated 21.12.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 1,52,000.00. Under the Award the said amount is to be paid to the claimants by the respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the insurer), but the insurer can recover the same from the insured as at the time of the accident the vehicle was being plied by a person not having a valid driving licence.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 28.7.1998 at 9.20 p.m. one Amar, aged about 5 years, was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 63 A-1418 along with the family members. When the said vehicle reached near the village Semari, it met with an accident with another Jeep No. M.P. 17 A-3387 which was being driven rashly and negligently. Other pas...
Committee of Management, Janta Inter College and anr. Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2560
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Earlier elections of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Nagla Mohan, Post Dhumari, district Etah were earlier held on 8.2.1986 in which Turram Singh was elected as the President and Mahendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager of the Institution. The next election was held on 1.1.1989 in which also Turram Singh was elected as President and Mahendra Singh Yadav was elected as Manager.3. It appears that an election dispute came into existence which was decided by the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra vide order dated 27.12.1989 holding Turram Singh, President and Mahendra Singh Yadav as the Manager according to election dated 1.1.1989. The signatures of Mahendra Singh Yadav were attested by District Inspector of Schools, Etah on 2.1.1990.4. It is alleged that Mahendra Singh Yadav who was said to have been elected as Manager died on 14.1.2005 and the District ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »