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.
Committee of Management of Silai Karhai Tatha Bunai Prashikshan Evam U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3240
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner is a technical institution known as Silai Karhai Tatha Bunai Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra. The aforesaid institution is recognized by the Social Welfare Directorate of U.P. Lucknow for imparting training in Tailoring and Allied Crafts Courses and is run by a registered society namely, Nehru Bal Mandal, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.3. It is alleged that the petitioner's institution continued to receive recurring grant from 1976 to 1985 but the same was discontinued following black-listing to Nehru Bal Mandal by the Director Social Welfare vide order dated 17.1.1992.4. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30744 OF 2000, Silai Karhai Bunai Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra v. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was decided vide judgment-dated 28.2.2005 directing the respondents to take the petitioner institution in the grant-in-aid...
Jitendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Krishna Dutt Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All257; 2006(4)AWC3379
ORDERAshok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mithlesh Kumar Tiwari appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Both the counsels have agreed that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage without inviting counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has submitted that his prayer be confined only for quashing the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the application of the writ petitioner filed in the of Appeal before the District Judege, Bijnore.2. A suit No. 393 of 1996 was filed by the respondents seeking a decree for permanent injunction and for cancellation of an agreement to sale dated 14.8.1996. The trial Court vide its judgement and 'decree' dated 6.4.2006 decreed the suit. The relief of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff with regard to disputed shops as described in List A and B of the paint. The defendants were restrained from interfering with the possessio...
Deo Raj Yadav Son of Late Ram Das Yadav Vs. State Bank of India Throug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR387]; (2006)IIILLJ683All
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the State Bank of India.2. The petitioner is an Ex-Armyman and was appointed as a Security Guard in the State Bank of India on 11.5.1971. He was confirmed in the service in the bank on 11.11.1971. His date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is 16.10.1933 and, consequently on the date when he was confirmed in November 1971 he was over 38 years of age. Under the Rules framed by the bank, the age of retirement is 58 years. The petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 15.10.1991 but was granted two extension of service, w.e.f. 16.10.1991 to 15.10.1992 and from 16.10.1992 to 15.10.1993. In this manner, the petitioner contended that he had been in service for more than 20 years. The petitioner made a representation to the authority praying that he was entitled for the payment of the pension under the State Bank of India Employees...
Shri Durga Bhagwati Industries and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Lohia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3434
Krishna Murari, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to two orders of the appellate court dated 4.4.2006 and 5.4.2006. By order dated 4.4.2006, the appellate court refused to extend the stay of the order of the prescribed authority and by order dated 5.4.2006, the application of tenants-petitioners to file certain additional evidence has been rejected.2. The undisputed facts are that respondents-landlords filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the accommodation in dispute. The prescribed authority vide order dated 23.1.2006, allowed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, tenants-petitioners filed an- appeal. On 21.2.2006, when the appeal came up for hearing the counsel appearing for landlords-respondents gave an undertaking before the appellate court that if some early date for disposal of appeal is fixed they will not put the order of the prescribed authority in execution. The appellate court fixed...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›