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.
Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC79
1. This appeal has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 23rd February, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 154/03, whereby and whereunder some directions and observations have been made regarding the compromise proposal came up before the learned Presiding Officer between the creditor Bank and the judgment debtor-borrower.2. According to the appellant, who happens to be the auction purchaser in D.R.C. proceedings namely D.R.C. case No. 299/02, such observations and directions given in the impugned order by the learned Presiding Officer, rather takes away his right as an auction purchaser. Without going into the detailed facts of the case, this much is sufficient to be stated that on the recovery certificate being issued in favour of the respondent-Bank against the respondent-borrower, D.R.C. case No.299/02 was started and in that D.R.C. proceeding mortgaged property has been sold and the appellant being the highest bidder his int...
North Eastern Carrying Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC121
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23rd March, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in miscellaneous application No. 144/2001, whereby and whereunder, the restoration petition under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside ex pane judgment delivered on 20th September, 2000 in T.A. No. 386/98 has been rejected.2. The brief facts are that respondent-C.B.I. filed a civil suit: for recovery of Rs. 10,78,162/- along with interest, cost, etc. against respondent No. 2-Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills and the appellant holding him jointly and severally liable for payment. While the suit was proceeding before the Court of Additional District Judge, Gwalior, the appellant, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit had appeared through one Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate and filed petition for setting aside of exparte order passed against the appella...
Sabha Sunder, Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3207
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar rejecting Reference No. 102 under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 4.3.2005 on application of petitioners.2. On the date of admission of the case, learned Counsel for petitioners, on the basis of instructions received from petitioners, urged that there is no record of Case No. 4315 decided on 3.12.1982 and entry made in the C.H. Form 23 is forged as no such proceeding was ever pending or prosecuted between the parties in Case No. 4315 decided on 3.12.1982, 1133 or 1144 decided on 22.10.1974. Learned Counsel for petitioners referred to finding in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation that after twenty years of notification under Section 52(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, proceeding on application of petitioner to expunge entry in revenue record could not be made and correction, if any, coul...
Ram Murat S/O Shri Santoo Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3419
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. The petitioners in all these 32 writ petitions were licensees of the fair price shops. Their licences have been cancelled on the ground that either they themselves or their wives or other family members had been elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. In writ petition No. 12850 of 2003 the wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 2000 and so his licence was cancelled on 26.10.02. In writ petition No. 16070 of 2006 the wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 2000 and re-elected in 2005, and so his licence was cancelled on 17,8.2000. Thereafter his representation was also rejected on 27.12.05. In the remaining writ petitions the petitioners or their family members became Pradhan in the election held in the year 2005 A chart showing the date of elections, the relationship of the Pradhan with the petitioners as well as the date of cancellation orders is as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Shyam Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2592
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this petition the petitioner challenges the appellate court's order whereby the Court below has interfered into trial court's order granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and has set aside the same.3. Admittedly the petitioner received a notice under Section 211 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit stating that the chabutra in front of his house being an encroachment over the road 'patri' be removed within a period of seven days failing which it would be so removed by the Municipality at his costs. Challenging this notice the petitioner moved the civil court with an injunction suit praying for a relief that the defendant Municipal Board be restrained from demolishing the said chabutra which exists in petitioner's land. The plaintiff side by side also moved the Court with a prayer under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. which was finally heard by the trial c...
Smt. Jagannathiya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2600
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition reveals a very sorry state of affair, wherein the learned civil court and the revisional court expressed their inability to enforce the order passed by them, leaving the hapless litigant on the mercy of the so called police administration.2. The present petitioner filed a Suit No. 477 of 2003 along with an application for injunction, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called C.P.C.). The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 15.7.2003. Being aggrieved. Revision No. 12 of 2003 was preferred and the revisional court granted the injunction vide order dated 18.11.2004, to the effect that the respondents were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner in respect of the premises in dispute. The order passed by the revisional court was not complied with. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. before th...
Master Arjun Vs. Smt. Shivani Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4174
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. This is a father's habeas corpus petition, seeking production of detenu, his child, Master Arjun petitioner who is being detained by his mother Smt. Shivani Chandra. Sri Prashant Chandra and Smt. Shivani Chandra got married on 15.2.2002 and thereafter Master Arjun was born out of their wedlock.2. It emerges from record that due to some differences between the parties, Smt. Shivani Chandra is now living with her parents. Both the parties have raised personal allegations against each other in the petition and counter-affidavit indicating reasons for not living together. However, the dispute was raised before a competent court who is dealing with the application moved by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.3. The child Master Arjun aged about three years is presently living with her mother, Smt. Shivani Chandra at Panchkula, Haryana. Sri Prashant Chandra has submitted that he is natural guardian of Master Arjun and he can, provide him all the faciliti...
Radhey Shyam Agarwal Vs. Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4156
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the landlord, petitioner and Sri M.S. Kotwal appearing for the tenant, opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.4.2002 passed by the appellate authority under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority on 28.9.1999 allowing the release application filed by the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant.3. In the present case, two kotharis, shops No. 8 and 9, situate at Gopinath Building No. 508/57, New Hyderabad, Lucknow were rented out to the tenant Sri Puttan Lai, opposite party No. 2. He was paying a meagre rent of Rs. 20 per month for the said two shops, which are presently being used for selling milk and running a tea-stall.4. It emerges from record that an application for release of the premises was submitted by the landlord R...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Adarsh Gramodyog Prasthan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST612(All)
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist-department and Sri R.R. Agarwal and Sri Suyash Agarwal learned Counsel for the opposite party-assessee.2. In respect of the assessment year 1993-94 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, an assessment order under rule 41(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 was passed by the assessing officer on March 14, 1997. In the order, the claim of the assessee for exclusion of the turnover qua the footwear traded by the assessee was refused on the ground that under the certificate issued by the Khadi Gramodyog Commission, Bombay, trade in footwear manufactured by a small-scale industry or a khadi gramodyog industry alone was exempted. Since the petitioner had purchased the footwear from manufacturers, other than small-scale/khadi gramodyog industry, he was not entitled for exclusion of the turnover qua the footwear traded by him only on the ground that the assessee was registered with Khadi Gramodyog Commission at Bombay.3. This p...
Sandeep Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ram Pher Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3316
Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 and learned Additional Government Advocate.2. Earlier on 9.5.2006 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and examining the short counter affidavit filed by N.C. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary, we had stayed the operation of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the State Government whereby the investigation, which was earlier transferred from the local police at the instance of Mahendra Nath Yadav, the accused respondent No. 7, on 27.1.2005, had again been re-transferred to the local police. Prima facie those orders appeared to have been passed due to improper political interference in the matter at the instance of the accused-arraceesed in a case under Section 302 IPC who was the President of the Student Union, Shiv Harsh Kisan P.G College, Basti, a member of the Zila Panchayat and the 'Lohiya Vahini Man...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »