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.
Smt. Anjana Kumar W/O Sri Ajai Kumar and Vs. State of U.P. Through Sec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3326
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely, ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.2. The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over t...
Anand Prakash Agrawal Son of Shri Dhan Prakash Agrawal Vs. Cantonment ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2854
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant Anand Prakash Agarwal has come up in appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order impugned is one dated 1,3.2006, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Contempt Application No. 380 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been directed to appear in person for framing of charge(s) against him in the contempt matter,2. Shortly put, the relevant facts are these; The appellant contemnor along with others filed Suit No. 581 of 1994 for permanent injunction against the Executive Officer and President of Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt (applicants in contempt application pending before the Hon'ble Single Judge) in the court of Civil Judge, Meerut. An application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code was also made for restraining the defendants from demolishing the constructions existing on the land in question. The injunction application was rejected by the trial court against which First Appeal From Order (No. 202 of 199...
Shankar Lal Son of Shri Ganga Prasad Vaish Vs. Vith Addl. District Jud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3322
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit (SCC suit No. 110 of 1979) filed by landlord-respondent No. 3 Mahesh Narain against him for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Eviction was mainly sought on the ground of subletting. Property in dispute is of such nature that it may either be described as consisting of two shops or one shop having two khans (portions). Manner of description will not make the least difference on the merit of the case.3. It was alleged in the plaint that tenant-petitioner - Shankar Lal had sublet one of two shops or one of the two portions of the shop to Suraj Pal. It is strange that Suraj Pal the alleged subtenant appeared as witness of the landlord and alleged that for a short period in between 1978-79 Shankar Lal had sublet part of the accommodation in dispute to him.4. According to the tenant he never sublet part of the accommodation to Surajpal who was only his munim and his serv...
Majid HusaIn Khan Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3320
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This petition challenges the order of the appellate court dated 19.4.2006, whereby the petitioner's adjournment application has been allowed and a date for hearing of appeal as well as the application of the petitioner has been fixed.3. Learned Counsel contends that the temporary injunction order was passed in appeal directing the respondents to maintain status quo on the disputed property. In gross violation of the said order, the respondents defendants have commenced construction in the suit land and have also demolished certain construction of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A. C.P.C. for charging and punishing the respondents for violation of the order was given before the appellate court, which is still pending. This application should be decided before the appeal is disposed of because after the decision of the appeal the Court would become functus offieio for disposal ...
Algu Vs. Bhola and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2622
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition, while challenging the order of the revisional court dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure-5), involves decision upon a precise question whether a revision against an order issuing show cause notice to the defendant by the trial court on an application seeking temporary injunction by the plaintiff is maintainable in the light of the State Amendment as incorporated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'C.P.C.') by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003.3. For a brief factual background of this case it may be stated that the petitioner plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 503 of 2004) in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondents defendants restraining them from interfering in plaintiffs' possession over the disputed land of plot No. 45 shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map. Along with this suit the petitioner also filed an interim application under O...
israr Ahmad Vs. Devanand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2983
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, by the tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the order dated 19th August, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of the prescribed authority under the Act dated 17.2.2004, is dismissed and the application filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the prescribed authority directed release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord.2. Brief facts are that respondent-landlords' father, Arjun Prasad, filed an application before the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the building in question is more than 150 years old and the building is in dilapidated condition which may fall down any time. Apart from the above Arjun Prasad also stated that he has t...
Amit Beri Son of Hardaya NaraIn Beri and Vs. Smt. Sheetal Beri Wife of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All267; 2006(4)AWC3332
B.A. Zaidi, J.1. There is a tussle between the Father and the Mother with regard to custody of their son, which has been going on for the last 5 years. At the time of presentation of the application by the Father, and Father's Father under Sections 10, 12 and 15 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Sections 6 and 13 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the District Judge, Bulandshahar, the boy was aged about 5 years but by the time, this appeal has come up for hearing, he is now over 10 years.2. Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides for the custody of a Child who has not completed the age of 5 years the of Mother and thereafter to the Father. The Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahar (Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act) vide his order dated 7.2.2002 (In Case No. 9 of 2001) granted the custody of the child to the Mother. The father and father's father appealed to the High Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court vide order da...
Jai Durga Enterprises Through Its Partner Dharmendra Singh and Vs. Sta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC184; 2006CriLJ3312
Shiv Shanker, J.1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by M/s Jai Durga Enterprises and Dharmendra Singh, applicants against respondent No. 2, M/s Indo Automobiles praying to quash the order dated 2 4.2005 passed in criminal case No. 1113/ 2005, M/s Indo Auto Mobiles v. Jai Durga Enterprises, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Saharanpur passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Saharanpur whereby the applicants/accused were summoned for trial.2. Brief facts arising out of this application are that opposite party No. 2, M/s Indo Automobiles filed criminal complaint against the above applicants/accused, wherein it was stated that he was manufacturer of tractors under the name of Indo Firm Equipment Limited and supplying tractors to its customers and under the transaction of said tractor the applicants were liable to pay Rs. 13,22,000/- to which the applicants have given a cheque of Rs. 13,22,000/- dated 29.4.04 to opposite party No. 2/...
Commissioner, Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. J.S. Gupta and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(201)ELT174(All)
ORDER1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Bhatia, appearing for the respondents.2. This appeal under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been preferred by the Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, Meerut-II against the Order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appgllate Tribunal dated 17-12-2004. The appeal has not been admitted so far.3. The relevant facts are that the respondent had been granted the status of 100 percent E.O.U. (Export Oriented Unit). This grant of status has not been cancelled or taken away, so far. Upon grant of such status the unit gets right/facility to obtain raw material free of duty.4. The Central Board of Excise and Custom has issued a circular and drawing upon the power conferred by the said circular, the Commissioner, Central Excise has passed an Order suspending the said right/facility of the respondent of procuring duty free raw material.5. The Tribunal has held that the right of procuring duty free raw ma...
Smt. Raj Rani and ors. Vs. Nazir Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3205
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') dated 16.1.2006.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :The respondents-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of 'the Act' on the ground that in the family partition, the accommodation which has come in their share compelled the landlord to move release application on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the accommodation in dispute. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner-tenant firstly on the ground that the application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act is not maintainable as the landlord has not impleaded all the landlords in the application thus, the application filed by respondent alone is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has further take...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »