Allahabad Court May 2006 Judgments
Sukhveer Singh Son of Kanchidda Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4816
Vinod Prasad, J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.2. The applicant Sukhveer Singh is aggrieved by an order dated 6.5.2006 passed by the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on an application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The A.C.J.M. II, Gautam Budh Nagar was please to reject the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant is in the knowledge of all the facts and of the witnesses therefore, the investigation is not required. A perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is specifically makes out a cognizable offence. It is the mandate of law, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., that the police will register all informations, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence. There is no scope for the police to refuse registration of any such information if given to it either orally or in writing. Learned Magistrate by refusing to direct t...
Tag this Judgment!Mangroo S/O Sarjuand ors. Vs. Ram Sumer Son of Ram Samujh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3091
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Originally Shiv Raj was tenure holder of the agricultural land in dispute and on his death his son Ram Samujh inherited the land. Respondent No. 1 Ram Sumer is son of Ram Samujh. In the revenue records of 1331 fasli (1923-24 A.D) names of Parag, Jhakari and Bali Karan were recorded as tenants and name of Ram Samujh was recorded as Farar (i.e a person who has abandoned the land). After about 10 years in the revenue records the names of Sarju, Ram Din, Bhullan and Ram Narain were recorded as tenure holders. After some time along with the said four persons the name of Ram Samujh was also recorded in the revenue records as co-tenure holder and all the five persons were shown to be the co-tenants to the extent of 1/5 share each. This position continued even after Zamindari Abolition and till the basic year. 3. After start of consolidation proceedings Ram Sumer respondent No. 1 son of Ram Samujh filed objections claiming exclusive rig...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Das and anr. Vs. Rajendra Mohan Mathur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2596
ORDERKrishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is tenant's petition challenging the order dated 28.4.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.3. The facts are that respondent No. 1 is a retired Colonel of Indian Army and respondent No. 2 is Wing Commander in Indian Air Force and thus are the soldiers within the meaning of the phrase comprised in Section 21(1) Explanation (iii) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short 'the Act'). An application under Section 21(1)(2) of the Act was filed by them for release of the disputed accommodation which is in the tenancy of the petitioners. The release was sought on the ground that respondent No. 1 has retired from the Army and respondent No. 2 is going to retire on 30.9.2006 and the disputed accommodation was required by them for residential purposes. The prescrib...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Chandra JaIn Son of Late Sheel Chandra JaIn Vs. Syndicate Bank ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ119All
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dinesh Chandra Jain, seeks the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 19.2.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Assistant General Manager, Industrial Relation Cell, Zonal Office, Syndicate Bank, Lucknow, respondent No. 4, order dated 12.5.2000, passed by the General Manager (Personnel), Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, State of Karnataka (Annexure No. 2) and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the Executive Director, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, State of Karnataka, respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 3).(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings emanating with issuance of charge sheet dated 5.2.99 (Annexure No. 14) and all proceedings including the punishment orders.(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Yadav Son of Late Shri Bhikhari Yadav Vs. Deoria Kasay ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC241
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13th February, 2001 passed by Secretary/General Manager, Deoria Kasaya Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Deoria directing for recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,628/- with 5.50% interest from the gratuity of the petitioner.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner, who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Baitalpur Branch of District Cooperative Bank, Deoria, while bringing cash of Rs.6,00,000/- from the head office to the Branch was intercepted by miscreants and the said amount was looted. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society initiated proceedings under Section 68 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by order dated 7th July, 1995 directed recovery of 35% of the balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- after d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Deo Vs. Ram Naresh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2578
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Defendant No. 2 Ram Deo in S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1984, Ram Naresh v. Ram Shankar Gupta and Anr. has filed the present revision against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 1985, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, rejecting the contention of defendant No. 2, i.e., the present applicant to transfer the suit for trial on regular side and also rejected the application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151. C.P.C. to stay further proceedings of the suit till the decision of the earlier instituted Suit Nos. 70 of 1978 and 79 of 1984.2. Plaintiff/opposite party instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1984 on the pleas inter alia that Plot No. 372 area .7 decimal situate in village Sikridi Buzurg, P.O. Sikri Ganj, Tappa Parsi. Tehsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur is abadi on the spot and the same is the bhumidhari of the plaintiff and his brother. In the said plot the present applicant has half share and the remaining half belongs to the plaintiff and his broth...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Qazim Raza Beg and ors. Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3107
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Mirza Qazim Raza Beg, Mirza Asad Raza Beg, Mirza Ale Raza Beg petitioners in the first writ petition and respondents No. 3 to 5 in the second writ petition are the landlords.2. Property in dispute is a house bearing No. 28 (old) 242 (new) situate at Rani Mandi, Allahabad.3. Ali Kabeer was the original tenant on behalf of the aforesaid landlords to whom the house in dispute was let out in 1967. Landlords filed suit for ejectment (Suit No. 53 of 1970). When the suit was filed original tenant Ali Kabeer had died. In the suit only two of his heirs, i.e., Col. Wajahat Kabeer and Zeenat Kabeer were made defendants. They are respondents No. 6 and 7 in the second writ petition. Smt. Nazeer Fatima the sole petitioner in the second writ petition and sole contesting respondent (respondent No. 2) in the first writ petition is also daughter of original tenant Ali Kabeer. Ali Kabeer left behind several heirs including Col. Wajahat Kabeer, Zeenat Kabeer, Nazeer Fatima and Nazar Fatim...
Tag this Judgment!Lajja Ram Lalam (Since Deceased) Represented by Smt. Chandramukhi and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3229
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 508 of 1970, Raska Nand v. Lajja Ram, for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed on 27.5.1976. The Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1976 arising, thereof was dismissed with directions to defendant-appellant to execute sale deed within six months, of the constructed building in accordance with the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 14.3.1969, in default whereof the deed shall be executed through Court, at the cost of defendant-appellant.3. The facts giving rise to the suit in brief are that the plaintiff and Brij Bihari were owners of Khasara plot No. 211 with an area of 1.65 acres, Thok Dusayat Patti Shamlat. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1946. Raska Nand v. Brij Behari for partition. The property scheduled in the plaint fell in the share of the plaintiff and he got possession over it in 1949. A portion of the property was taken by the State Government for which the p...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Bashir Ahmad Bhatti Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC230
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri P.L. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, landlady.2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 22.10.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, revisional court, allowing the revision preferred by the landlord under Section 18 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972'). The landlord had challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority on 29.10.1988, refusing to release the premises in dispute and declaring the vacancy. The revisional court vide order dated 22.10.2005 has declared the premises as vacant and the tenant-petitioher has been directed to vacate the premises and handover the peaceful possession to the landlady. The review petition preferred by the petitioner-tenant which was dismissed on 3.3.2006, is also under challenge in this writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Holkar Enterprises and ors. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC147
1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in T.A. No.1145/98, whereby and whereunder the recovery certificate has been ordered to be issued against the appellants and in favour of the respondent Bank for realisation of Rs. 72,06,252.22 with interest, future and pendente lite, and also with cost and other usual reliefs.2. The respondent Bank had filed an original suit before the District Judge, Bhopal registered as original Suit No. 35-A of 1996 against the appellants for recovery of a sum as mentioned above stating various facts as to how the loan was taken by the appellants and the same remained unpaid. The appellant-defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement challenging the contentions of the Bank on 17th January, 1998. They had taken various pleas to thwart the claim of the Bank in their written statement while the suit was pending before the Tribunal, then the DRT, Jabalpur was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »