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.
Akhilesh Tiwari S/O Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3324; [2006(110)FLR497]
A.P. Sahi, J.1. These two writ petitions are in respect of an engagement on the post of Ward boy in the Primary Health Centre at Amuwari, Narainpur, Azamgarh. on compassionate basis. The petitioner -Akhilesh Tiwari claims himself to be the son of Late Kaushalya Tripathi, who died-in-harness on 19.7.2005. He sought appointment on compassionate basis and was, accordingly, appointed as such. The petitioner's sister Smt. Hem Lata Devi has filed the other writ petition alleging therein that Sri Ahiklesh Tiwari is not the real brother of the petitioner and is rather the son of his uncle who has manipulated documents to obtain the appointment on compassionate basis, Sri Akhilesh Tewari has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.2.2006 in Writ Petition No. 24728 of 2006 whereby his salary has been withheld and has been restrained from discharging his duties.2. It is admitted to Sri Hem Lata Devi that she is married but she contends that she has been deserted by her husband and in view of thi...
Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi Son of Late Sajjan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3095; [2006(110)FLR945]
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi seeks the following reliefs: (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 2.6.1995 rejecting the application No. 1587/92 Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors. and quashing the order dated 5.12.1995 passed in review application No. 83 of 1995 in Original application No. 1587 of 1992 Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors..(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.3.1992, 14.2.1992/14.7.1992.(c) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground treating him legal heir of Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi.(d) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of th...
Dukhan Prasad Singh Son of Sri Karu Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3210
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dhukhan Prasad Singh, seeks the following reliefs:(a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 5(Annexure No. 10) and also the order dated 1.5.2003 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Respondent No. 2.(b) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to release the full pension of the petitioner along with the arrears and also release all the retiral benefits including gratuity.(c) issue any other or further Writ, Order or Direction, which the Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.(d) award the cost of the petition.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 6th July, 1959 in the Railway Mail Service on the post of Mail Man in Gay...
Kamlesh Chand Vs. Lallan Babu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4171
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an Original Suit No. 150 of 1975 in the Court of Munsif, Sitapur with regard to partition of a plot, shown by letters A, B, C, D in the map appended with the plaint, situated in Pargana Hargaon GanJ, Tehsil and district Sitapur, alleging it as a Joint Hindu Family property, purchased out of the earnings of Joint Hindu Family business in the year 1949. The plaintiff alleged that the plot was recorded in Revenue Papers in the name of defendant Prabhu Dayal being the karta of the family in which the plaintiffs had half share which the defendants denied.2. In their written statements, the defendants denied the allegations of there being any joint family business between the father of the plaintiffs and Prabhu Dayal, claiming the plot was purchased by Prabhu Dayal out of his own earnings and since then he was in exclusive possession of the said plot.3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs alleged, that the parties had come t...
Ramesh Chandra Sahni Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3993
Dharam Veer Sharma, J.1.The instant writ petition has been preferred with following reliefs:(1) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to withdraw the notification dated 5.7.1985 (Annexure-2).(2) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 5.7.1985 (Annexure-2), issued by the State of U.P.2. Back ground facts are as below:The petitioner claims to be the owner and bhoomidhar of plot Nos. 51, 143, 144, 228-Ka within the area of 5 bigha, 18 biswa and 14 biswansi situated in village Haibatmau Mawaiya, Pargana Bijnor, district Lucknow. It is alleged that the notification dated 5.7.1985 was published in official Gazette under Sections 4(1) and 17(4). On 27.6.1985, the notification was issued on 5.7.1985 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the acquisition of the plots mentioned in the above (Annexure-2). It is alleged that the land is acquired not for use of opposite party No. 1, but for the use of some society, c...
Ajay @ Monu, Son of Ramdhan (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3326
V.D. Chaturvedi, J.1. This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by Sri R.S. Chaubey Sessions Judge, Etawah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revisionist's application for declaring him as juvenile. The revisionist was involved in case Crime No. 6 of 2005 P.S. Lavedi, district Etawah Under Section 302/34 IPC. During the pendency of his bail application before the Sessions Judge, the revisionist moved an application on which the impugned order was passed.2. I have heard Sri R.K. Porwar and Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan for the revisionist and Sri Manish Tiwari, Sri A.K. Awasthi and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.3. The learned Counsel for the revisionist drew my attention towards Sub-rule(5) of Rule 22 of the 'Model Rules' framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, herein after called as 'the Rules', Drawing my attention towards Sub-rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules, he argued that the age opined by the medical Bo...
Rahmatullah and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2583
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41979 of 2004 filed by Rahmatullah and two others-Azamatullah and Smt. Naseem Begum - sons and daughter respectively of Saiyed Ullah Khan, was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2005. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners, Rahmatullah and Ors., in the aforesaid writ petition, had sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6/7.7.2004, passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. They had further sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, namely, Munish Kumar Jain, Vijay Kumar Seth and Jain Inter College, respectively, not to transfer and change the nature of the land in question pending disposal of the writ petition or till the date of reverting back the possession of the land in question to the petitioners by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petiti...
Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. Director, Consolidation, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2628
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Challenge in this petition is focused on the order dated 2.9.2005, whereby Director, Consolidation, U.P. rescinded the Notifications dated 1.8.1986 and 8.9.1991 having been issued under Section 4(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for commencement of the consolidation of the area relating to two villages namely, village Jakhangaon Tahsll Mathura and village Fodar Tahsil Mathura.2. The petition was called on 11.5.2006 and the same day, by an order of the Court dated 11.5.2006, learned standing counsel was directed to seek instructions from respondents forthwith and the case was listed for 16.5.2006. No counter-affidavit was filed on 16.5.2006 on behalf of Director of Consolidation and instead, the learned standing counsel furnished all the requisite information by producing entire material as received from the office of Director of Consolidation and the same was ordered to be placed on record,3. A brief resume of necessary facts filtering out unnecessa...
Bal Kishan Bansal Son of Purushottam Das Bansal Vs. Pramit Bansal Son ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All305; 2007(1)ARBLR47(All); 2006(4)AWC3509
P. Krishna, J.1. Three persons namely Bal Kishan Bansal, Devki Nandan Bansal and Pramit Bansal formed a partnership under the name and style of M/s Bhagwati Glass Enterprises with the object of carrying on the business for sale and manufacturing of glass and bangles and other glass products. The said partnership was the reduced in writing on the 1st day of April 1995. The partnership deed contains clause No. 13 which provide that in case of any dispute among the parties, the matter first shall be referred for arbitration and if such appointment is not possible, party or parties shall have right to recourse at the court of law.2. With the passage of time, some dispute arose among the members of the aforesaid partnership, which led the filing of suit No. 266 of 2003 by Pramit Bansal and Devki Nandan Bansal (opposite parties in the present revision) against Bal Kishan Bansal (applicant), for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the running and working and nec...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Insurance Inspector ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC157; 2007ACJ280; 2006(4)AWC3329; [2006(110)FLR322]; (2006)IIILLJ595All; [2007]1SCL317(All)
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The respondent who is an employee in a factory, suffered injury in his right ear and was referred by the Corporation to the Medical Board for Medical Examination for determination of his disablement as postulated in Section 54A of the 'Employees State Insurance Act, 1948' (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act') read with Regulation- 72 of the year 1950 under the Act.2. The Medical Board in its report dated 20.2.1992 noted that the test does not reveal Hearing Loss and there was no disablement injury, and, therefore, the employee was not entitled to any disablement benefit. The employee then went before the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. He did not file an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Medical Board because he had the option to go straight to the court by Virtue of the provisions as contained in Clause-II Sub-section 2 of Section 54A of the Act. The provision is as follows:(2) If the insured person or the Corporation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »