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.
Shri Amrish Son of Sri Ishwar Vs. Up-ziladhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3516
Vineet Saran, J.1. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the election of the Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Narangpur Damgadhi, Block Rohta, Tahsil and District Meerut.2. In the elections held in August, 2005 the petitioner was declared elected as Gram Pradhan, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were the other candidates. An election petition No. 5 of 2005 was filed by the Respondent No. 2 challenging the election of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan. In the said election petition, on 14.12.2005 the Respondent No. 2 filed an application praying for recounting of votes. By the impugned order dated 27.4.2006 the Respondent No. 1 Up-Ziladhari, Meerut has allowed the application of the Respondent No. 2 with the direction for re-counting of votes on 29.4.2006. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3. I have heard Sri Siddhartha, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Sri V.P. Shukla, learned Co...
Om Prakash Son of Gauri Shankar Vs. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3445
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the demand notice dated 22.03.2006 for recovery of Rs. 2,54,686/- as outstanding dues towards electricity consumption.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 15.02.2006, in a surprise check by respondent Department, the petitioner was found committing theft of electricity. He was proceeded with under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). However the offence was compounded under Sub-section (3) of Section 152 of the Act, asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner deposited the said amount but he received the impugned recovery notice dated 22.03.2006 for a sum of Rs. 2,54,686/-. Hence the present petition.3. Shri Mayank Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the matter has been compounded and the petitioner has deposited the entire amount, no recovery is permissible. Therefore, the notice impugned is liabl...
Mohammad Ayyub Siddiqui Son of Mohammad Yakub Siddiqui Vs. Committee o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3044
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. At the outset, the counsel for the parties submits that two unlisted writ petition No. 15652 of 2006, Committee of Management, A.K. Khan Inter College v. State of U.P. and Ors. and writ petition No. 6526 of 2005, Committee of Management, A.K. Khan Inter College v. State of U.P. and Ors. are on the computer list having nexus with the same matter as has been raised in the writ petition No. 23457, which is a fresh case. It is stated counter and rejoinder affidavits in the aforesaid connected writ petitions No. 15652 of 2006 have been exchanged and as such all the writ petitions aforesaid having common questions of law and facts may be heard and decided together.WRIT PETITION NO. 6526 OF 2005: -3. This petition has been filed mainly for the following reliefs: -(a) 'To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8.3.2004 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed...
Brij Lal Bhar S/O Balroop Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3334
Ravindra Singh, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Brij Lal Bhar being aggrieved from the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur in case No. Nil of 2005 whereby application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the revisionist Brij Lai Bhar lodged a non cognizable report (N.C.R.) No. 78 of 2005 on 27.10.2005 at P.S. Newarhia, district Jaunpur, in respect of the offence which was committed on 26.10.2005. In the said incident the revisionist was assaulted and received injuries, he was medically examined on 26.10.2000 at 6.15 p.m., as per medical examination report he has received three injuries, Injury no, 1 was contusion of left side of the face. Injury no, 2 was contusion on the left side of the chest and injury No. 3 was complaint of pain of the left hip joint. All the injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Injury No. 1 was simple in nature and injury No. 2 was kept under observati...
Raj Nath Singh Son of Sri Kalp Nath Singh and Shyam NaraIn Singh Son o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3533
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 4, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Annexure-12 to the writ petition).3. By the impugned order the Registrar has directed the Assistant Registrar to hold elections of Committee of Management in pursuance of the directions of this Court vide judgment dated 9.4.2004. The election is sought to be held on basis of list of members of the committee, which is said to have been elected in undisputed elections on 30.9.1995. According to the petitioners the list of 1995 is disputed whereas the respondents case is that it is undisputed and there is no illegality in the order impugned.4. Brief facts of the case are that Krishak Sangh Uchauri is a registered Society, which runs the Institution known as Kedar Narain Krishak Inter Col...
Om Prakash Vishnoyee Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2888
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-tenant challenge the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (In short 'the Act') dated 23rd January, 1999 and the order passed by the appellate authority under 'the Act' dated 5th November, 2003, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '3' and '4', respectively to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent Smt. Shantl Devi is the landlord of the accommodation in question and the petitioner is tenant of duchhatti (mezzanine). The landlord has purchased the accommodation in question by registered sale deed in the year 1974 for residential purpose. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' on the ground that landlord had purchased the accommodation in question by registered sale deed in the year 1974 for the residence of landlord and her family. It is further asserted t...
Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3514
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner challenges the order of the trial court dated 10.2.2003 and also the order of the appellate court dated 23.3.2006 whereby petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25.2.2000 has been dismissed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in the year 1992. There was no personal service of the summons and instead service by refusal had been held to be sufficient service. The knowledge of ex parte decree was had by the petitioner only on 12.12.2000 when a certified copy of that decree was filed in a matter before revenue court in which both the parties were contesting against each other, it is only thereafter that the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C,, dated 15.12.2000 was given before the trial court. It is further contended that the courts below have wrongly held that the petitioner had put in appeara...
Jan Mohammad and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2982
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. It appears that petitioners have got no chivalry. They are trying to usurp the land of a woman. Consolidation officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the case in favour petitioners. Deputy Director of Consolidation very rightly set aside the said judgments in revision No. 1 of 2005 decided on 9.3.2005. Right from 1356 fasli (1.7.48 to 30.6.49) till the basic-year the name of Chiragan was recorded and after the death of Chiragan name of his widow Smt. Phekani was recorded in the revenue records. It appears that when consolidation proceedings started, petitioners got an idea in their minds that they could usurp the property and filed objection saying that the property was jointly owned by husband of Smt. Phekani alongwith them. In India normally male people make efforts that name of lady tenure holders may not be included in the revenue records. However the same thing is not true in the reverse order. Ladies normally...
Ram Deo Son of Chhote Lal, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Special ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3328
Amitava Lala and Shiv Shanker, JJ. 1. The petitioners made the following prayers: a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners and refrain from taking any action revoking their orders of release under the Government Order dated 11,1.2000 to 25.1.2000. b. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. c. award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on 17.2.2003 when the aforesaid two Government Orders were already struck down by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mirza Mohammad Husayn v. State of U.P. 2002(44) ACC 81 (SC). Therefore, the Government Orders, which were struck down by Division Bench of this Court were no more available at the time of making this writ petition. Hence, the only relevant part of consideration is whether the petitioners will be arrested or not. Fac...
Rajendra Singh Chauhan S/O Late Sri Kuber Singh Vs. the State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC436
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.2. For the Excise Year 2002-03, a now policy was enforced and for the said purpose, U.P. Excise (Settlement of licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 were notified vide notification dated 14th March, 2002. In accordance with this policy, an advertisement was published for settlement of the shop for retail sale of country liquor in District Etah. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of licence in respect of the shops situated at Nagla-Bari, Tehsil Sadarand Badaola, District Etah. The petitioner was selected for grant of licence in respect of aforesaid shops and be was accordingly intimated by respondent No. 4, namely, District Excise Officer, Etah.3. In the relevant Excise year, because of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, in a bunch of writ petition, the settlement of the shop for retail sale of country liquor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »