Allahabad Court July 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.
i.A. Ansari, Proprietor of Sharp Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC54
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant appellants against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in case No. T.A. 1023 of 1998 whereby the prayer of the respondent Bank for taking some documents on records has been allowed.2. There is chequered history of the case, the respondent Bank had filed the above mentioned case for recovery of non-paid loan amount from the appellants. The appellants had taken the plea that they have never authorised the borrowers for mortgaging their property and as such the Bank cannot proceed with the mortgaged property as security.During the pendency of the case at the instance of the defendants including the appellants some of the Bank officials were cross-examined and then the case was closed and was fixed for judgment on 17th October, 2002 after hearing final argument. Then on 9th October, 2002 the respondent Bank had filed the petition for taking some documents on record rega...
Decora Carpet and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC29
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, D.R.T.. Allahabad in case No. M.A. No. 97 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the restoration application filed by the appellants under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (henceforth shall be referred to as "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside of the ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 160 of 2000 has been dismissed. The appellants were defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the original case.2. The admitted position is that the respondent Bank had filed an original suit being original suit No. 92 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur for recovery of Rs. 28,75,273.58 together with future and pendente lite interest and other usual reliefs. In the original suit the appellant-defendants had put in appearance and filed their written statement and contested the case on day-to-day basis. After coming into force of the Act, the original suit was...
Vitik Pharma and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC46
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in miscellaneous application No. 75 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 11th November, 2002 passed in T.A. No. 1223 of 2000 have been rejected.2. The respondent had filed an original suit namely Original Application No. 444 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar for decree of Rs. 15,51,137.25 against the appellants and others. In that original suit the defendants appeared and filed written statement and then due to operation of law the original suit was transferred to the D.R.T., Jabalpur and renumbered as T.A. No. 984 of 1999. After formation of D.R.T. at Allahabad the case was again transferred from Jabalpur and registered...
Bhanu Pratap Pandey Son of Shri Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR30]
Bharati Sapru, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.N. Pandey and also learned Counsel for the Union of India Shri D.K. Dwivedi at length.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against three orders dated 18.4,02 (Annexure-3), order dated 12.11.02(Annexure-5) and the order dated 17.7.03 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4. The first order is an order passed by the disciplinary authority. The second is an order passed by the appellate authority and the third order is passed by the Revisional Authority, by which, the punishment of removal of service has been imposed against the petitioner under the C.R.P.F. Act, 1945.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as a Constable at Dimapur (Nagaland) which is a sensitive and terrorist affected area.4. The petitioner was charged with desertion on 8.11.01 for having left and deserted his duties without due permission and leave from the competent authority. A departmental en...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganesh and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2006]286ITR580(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without obtaining the prior consent of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in terms of Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The reference relates to the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:4. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in grains, oils, etc., on own accounts as well as on 'arhat'. Its accounting year, for the assessment year 1974-75 ended on March 31, 1974. In respect of the said accounting year, the assessee earned arhat at the rate of 3 per cent, but in its ac...
Jai Prakash Agarwal Son of Shyam Lal Agarwal and ors. Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4199
Amar Saran, J.1. List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the applicants is present Learned Counsel for the complainant is absent.2. This application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants in case No. 1369 of 1998, pending in the Court of Xth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the complaint has been lodged belatedly as admittedly the incident in question took place in 1988 and the complainant left for her parents house in the year 1989 and after nine years in the year 1998, the complaint had been lodged.4. As the offence under Section 494 IPC is a continuing offence, it provides no ground for quashing of the proceedings against the applicants5. Secondly, learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Admn. : 1966CriLJ472 for the proposition that there must be proof of second marriage and the allegati...
Amar Zia and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC199
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is plaintiff's revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the Judgment and decree dated 12.9.1997 passed by Judge Small Causes Court (Special Judge), Muzaffarnagar in SCC Suit No. 62 of 1989.2. The facts giving rise to the present revision, in brief, are as follows:Ghyasuddin, the predecessor in interest of the present applicants, instituted SCC Suit No. 62 of 1999 on the pleas inter alia, that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed property described at the foot of the plaint and the same was let out to the State Bank of India, opposite party, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000. The tenant Bank failed to pay rent with effect from 1.9.1989. The property in question was a new construction. It was. constructed in the year 1985, so the provision of U.P. Urban Buildings {Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) are not applicable. The tenancy was terminated by means of notic...
Bhartiya Antar Rashtriya Byopari (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jagat Estate a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC217
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. It arises out of an application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3)(b) of C.P.C. by the plaintiff opposite party who is arrayed as opposite party No. 1 in the revision. The said application, by the order under revision, has been allowed by the court below on the condition on payment of Rs. 2500 as costs with liberty to file fresh suit.2. M/s. Jagat Estate, a partnership, instituted suit No. 80 of 2001 claiming itself to be landlord of the disputed property for ejectment of M/s. Bhartiya Antar Rashtriya Byopari Limited and M/s. Kishore Bandhu Private Limited (Applicants No. 1 and 2) on the ground that the plaintiff opposite party is a registered partnership firm. The defendant applicants have failed to pay the rent and are defaulters within meaning of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, thus, they are liable for eviction. Plea of subletting of major portion of the house in dispu...
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC282; [2007(112)FLR17]
Vikram Nath, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been filed with a prayer to command the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Lecturer in Hindi under the category of dependents of freedom fighters against the Advertisement No. 32 issued by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. Both these petitions relate to Advertisement No. 32 only. Pleadings in both these petitions are also similar. Both these petitions, being similar in nature, and the relief claimed also being similar, they are being heard together. The pleadings of Writ Petition No. 22497 of 2004 are being referred to in this Judgment.2. Upon a request being sent by the Director, Higher Education, U. P., the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission issued Advertisement Nos. 30, 31 and 32 jointly inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different degree colleges and post graduate colleges for appointment of Lecturers in different institutions all over the State. ...
Krishna Kumar Son of Sri Manna Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC249
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus permitting the petitioner to join training upon having been selected on the post of constable in U.P. Police Services.2. The parties have exchanged affidavits and it transpires that the objection to the petitioner's candidature, on verifying the character and antecedents of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had concealed the pendency of a criminal case against him. A written submission has also been filed by Sri Sidharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. The ground on which the action of the respondents is being questioned is that the character verification form as prescribed by the respondents does not contain any such clause calling upon the candidate to declare that any criminal case is pending against him. Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the court to column No. 11 of the said verification form, which is part of Annexure V to the writ petition. A perusal of the same indicates that the onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »