Allahabad Court May 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.
Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR84]; (2006)IIILLJ732All
R.K. Agrawal and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. We have heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the averments made in the writ petition, its annexures, counter and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties.2. From the perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated May 28, 2004 we find that the Tribunal has rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner both on the ground of limitation as also on merits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support thereof and the said application and the affidavit were not taken into account by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned that no such application has been filed by the petitioner. Along with writ petition, the petitioner has filed certified copy of the application filed under Sect...
Parmanand Agrawal Vs. Arvind Kumar Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3110
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant-petitioner prays for the following reliefs:It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 25.5.2005. passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun in O.S. No. 64/98, Arvind Kumar Gupta v. Parmanand Agrawal, order dated 16.4.2005, passed in Civil Revision No. 38/2005 passed by District Judge, Budaun, Parmanand Agrawal v. Arvind Kumar Gupta, and order dated 1.3.2005, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun.It is further prayed that the trial court be directed to decide the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction first. Otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are that plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,626 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Divis...
Haseen Ahmad Khan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1658
Allah Raham, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1978 passed by Civil Judge, Faizabadin Civil Appeal No. 220 of 1978 allowing the appeal of defendant respondent and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1977 passed by Second Additional Munsif, Faizabad in regular suit No. 364 of 1971 and thus dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant.2. It appears that the plaintiff Anwar Khan (now deceased and represented through 1/a Haseen Ahmad Khan and 1/b Parvez Anwar Khan) filed a suit (No. 364 of 1971) against the State of Uttar Pradesh for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the house and Ahata whose boundaries are given at the foot of the plaint. He further sought injunction against the State and prayed that the State be restrained from auctioning the disputed property.3. The plaintiff claimed that he is owner in possession of the house and Ahata which is Parcha ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prism Cement Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2006
Reported in: 2008[9]STR12
ORDER1. This is a Central Excise appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Only one question of law has been framed by the appellant namely, 'whether refund can be sanctioned to the respondents without satisfying the requirement of principle of unjust enrichment'. A perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 24-10-2005 shows that both the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded a finding that no unjust enrichment has taken place. For recording this finding, reliance has been placed upon a certificate from a Chartered Accountant and books of account (General Ledger) for the relevant period.2. It appears that the contention of the appellant was that this material i.e., certificate of the Chartered Accountant and the books of account were not sufficient for recording a finding that there was no unjust enrichment. Sufficiency of evidence and findings of fact are not matters on which an appeal can be entertained.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
S.P. Kanudia and ors. Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC150
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant-appellants against the order dated 8th January, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in Original Application No. 122/ 02, whereby and whereunder the prayer of amendment of the original application was allowed at the instance of the respondent No. 1-I.F.C.I. Limited.2. A consortium of financial institution namely the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed the above mentioned original application for recovery of a huge sum from the borrower Ganges Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the guarantors. The original application was filed on 10th April, 2002 and during the pendency of that original application, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition on 10th September, 2003 for amendment of the original application to replace the Managing Director of the borrowing company of the Official Liquidator as appointed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on a company application for winding up of the borrower company. Admit...
Om Prakas Asati S/O Mr. Devi Das Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (by and Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3461
B.A. Zaidi, J.1. The petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer since June 18, 1996 in Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigan with respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and was functioning as Pariyojna Prabandhak, Yamuna Pollution Control Unit, U.P. Jal Nigam, Arga, when has been compulsorily retired by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1.9.2005 passed by Managing Director of U.P. Jal Nigam, copy of which is Annexure 2 on the record. He seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing this order and to reinstate, also claiming a few more reliefs.2. The order of compulsory retirement of a Sate employee including an employee in the U.P. Jal Nigam is passed under Rule 56(c) of 'U.P. Fundamental Rules', which is as below:56(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may...
Ved Prakash S/O Hari Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Secretary, M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3027
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd October. 2003 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur in appeal against the order dated 29th March, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Gorakhpur in case No. 1290/614 of 2003 under Section 33 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Brief facts of the case are that the document has been executed on 1st May, 1997 in respect of the contract for the realization of Tehbazari of the taxi stand and parking place in an action for Rs. 401000/-. A notice has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Gorakhpur on 21st March. 2003 under Section 47A/33 of the Act with the allegation that there was a deficiency of stamp of Rs. 50130/-. The petitioner has been asked to explain why the demand of such amount be not raised. The petitioner filed objection stating inter alia therein that the notice is barred by limitation inasmuch a...
Smt. Laxmi Devi Wife of Kunwar Pal Vs. Kunwar Pal S/O Hardev
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All281; 2006(3)AWC3090
Ali Zaidi, J. 1. In this case, under 'The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called the 'Act'),the dispute was whether the application for custody of children lay at Saharanpur in U.P. or at Ludhiyana in Punjab? The husband-respondent who made an application being Misc. Civil Case No. 101 of 2003 under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act for the custody of the minor children resides in District Saharanpur and he filed the application for custody of children in Saharanpur Court. The Opp. Party- appellant (here) who resides in Ludhiyana, stated in her reply that the application will lie in Ludhiyana and not at Saharanpur because children are residing with hear at Ludhiyana.2. The learned Ist Addl. District Judge , Saharanpur vide its order dated 4.12.2006 on basis of the averments, in the application upheld the contention of the husband that the jurisdiction lay in Court at Saharanpur and that is how this appeal by the appellant wife.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appell...
Devanand S/O Shri Matadeen Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Engineer in ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3219; [2006(110)FLR389]
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.03.2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the reference made by the Labour Court has been decided against the petitioner.2. Petitioner was admittedly engaged as daily wager by the respondents. It is claimed that the petitioner worked during the period 6.8.1986 to 26.6.1988 and thereafter no work has been taken from the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 21679 of 1991 challenging the removal. This Court vide order dated 28.11.1995 has held as follows:Since they are temporary daily wage employees so long as there is no regular posts available for the appointment the question of making pay on a per with the regular employees does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the statute, if any or the prevailing wages as available in the locality. Now Mr. Tandon, submits that the petitioners should be allowed to continue or t...
Jhuri and ors. Vs. Aldan William
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2598
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The facts relating to this appeal are that the appellants here filed a Suit No. 584 of 1989, Jhuri and Ors. v. Eldan William in the court of Munsif City, Gorakhpur for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the agricultural land bearing Gata No. 738 Plot No. 1457 Min. area one acre 31 dismal 5 Kadi as detailed at the foot of the plaint, situated in village Basaratpur Tappa and Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, district Gorakhpur. The suit was decreed on a compromise vide order dated 18.5.1989.2. The defendant-respondent Aldan William, thereafter filed a suit No. 1468 of 2000 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 18.5.1989, obtained on the ground of fraud and allegation was that the defendants Jhuri and Ors. manipulated the filing of the written statement in Suit No. 584 of 1989 by an imposter and the plaintiff-respondent never filed written statement and the written agreement...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »