Allahabad Court August 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.
Prakash Chand Gupta Vs. Sobran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3556
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is second round of litigation in this Court. The revision is Under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act at the instance of plaintiff landlord against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1998, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 1993. The trial court has dismissed the suit for ejectment of defendant-tenant and extend the benefit of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act Nor 13 of 1972 and held that the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited under the aforesaid section. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree present revision has been filed by the landlord.2. Suit giving rise to the present revision was instituted on the pleas, inter alia that the defendant was tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 150 in respect of the shop situate at Mohalla Purani Sabzi Mandi, Qasba Sasni, district Aligarh. The defendant being defaulter in payment of rent tenancy was terminated by means of notice dated 23.1.1993 demanding arrears of rent from the period...
Balbir Prasad Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3623
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. An Original Suit No. 457 of 1983 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents No. 2 to 4 in which it had been claimed by him that he became the owner of the disputed property vide sale deed executed by Shiv Prasad in his favour. The case of the respondents was that they had purchased the property from one Slddhu. By means of the amendment application the petitioner sought an amendment to add paragraph 1A in the plaint wherein it was clarified as to how Shiv Prasad, from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property, was the erstwhile owner of the property in question. A further amendment was sought for bringing on record certain subsequent events which had taken place in the year 1985. The trial court vide its order dated 16.9.1998 allowed the amendment on payment of costs of Rs. 300. Challenging the said order, the defendant-respondents filed revision which was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 19.7.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesai...
Rajendra Prasad and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4150
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri M.K. Nigam learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.N. Singh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the Judgment and order dated 4.12.1991 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in Revision No. 145 of 1991. By the aforesaid judgment, the revisional court In exercise of its power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act has proceeded to allow the revision of the respondent No. 3 and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and also dismissed the suit of the petitioners with costs.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the sole ground upon which the revision of the respondent No. 3 has been allowed is that the suit for ejectment should have been filed by all the landlords co-owners and since it has been filed by only one co-owner-landlord, therefore, he has no right to file the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitio...
Shyam Lal Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST608(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 5, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrains, oil seed, etc. On the basis of the information received from Mandi Samiti that the applicant was issued 90 gate passes, proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated against the applicant. During the course of assessment proceedings, 59 gate passes were got verified but 31 gate passes could not be verified. The applicant was asked to produce satti bahi and stock register, issued by the Mandi Samiti but the same could not be produced and in its place the stock register and satti bahi as required by the SMI department were produced. The assessing authority treated the information relating to the 31 gate ...
Mohd. Idris Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Addl. City Magistrat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3625
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner claims to be tenant of House No. 100/186 Colonelganj, Kanpur Nagar since 1970 at the monthly rent of Rs. 375 per month.2. It is alleged that the landlord Ahmad Shafiq refused to accept the rent of the house in dispute as such the petitioner has deposited the rent Under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Case No. 116/70/2004, Mohd. Ismail v. Ahmad Shafiq.3. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 3 Mohd. Ismail S/o Ibrahim moved an application dated 4.12.2004 before R.C. and E.G., Kanpur Nagar for allotment of the premises in dispute in his favour on the ground that there is deemed vacancy as the petitioner is living in the house in dispute without any allotment in his favour. The petitioner claims that he is living in the house in dispute since 20.5.1970 as tenant and his tenancy stands regularized by Virtue of Act No. 28 of 1976. It appears that the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 31.12.2004 in the application to the effe...
Ram Autar Verma S/O Ram Bharosa Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary (S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1060]
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rishikesh Tripathi on behalf of the petitioner. Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Birendra Singh on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. Counsel present for the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage.3. Petitioner Ram Autar Verma was working as Principal in Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Banda (hereinafter to be referred to as an Institution). The said institution is aided and recognized under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. In respect of certain allegations noticed against the Principal of the institution he was placed under suspension pending enquiry under resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21.2.2006. In accordance with the provisions Section 16-G(6) read with 16-G(7) of the Intermediate Education Act relevant papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Banda for necessary approval of the suspension so affected. The ...
The Committee of Management Vidya Bhawan Inter College Through Its Man ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC803
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The suspension of the Principal of the recognised intermediate college on the charge of embezzlement etc., has been engaging the attention of this Court time and again and at present two writ petitions are pending in respect of the same.3. Facts in short relevant for these petitions are: the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 29th June, 2005 resolved to suspend the Principal of the institution pending enquiry into charges of financial embezzlement etc. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, in exercise of powers under Section 16(g) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 disapproved the said order of suspension vide order dated 22nd July, 2005. The order so passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52780 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29th July, 2005 and this Court require...
K.B. Bone Mills Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST960(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 12, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, all under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.In all the three revisions, following common questions have been raised:1. Whether in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [1997] 106 STC 460 : [1998] UPTC 1 dated July 16, 1997, no interest can be charged under the Central Sales Tax Act on Central sales?2. Whether in view of the Notification No. 7038 dated January 31, 1985, the applicant was not liable for payment of tax in respect of bone meal and bone meal powder which was sold by the applicant?3. Whether the description of the goods sold having been mentioned in the bills and invoices which was purchased and consumed by Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd., which...
Ram Krishna Gupta Vs. Smt. Nootan Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1660
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. The above-mentioned revisions were dismissed in open Court today for reasons to be recorded later on. My reasons for dismissing these revisions are as follows.2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.P. Singh Gaur along with Sri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.3. The revisionist has assailed an order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow rejecting the application/objections filed by one Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, challenging the sale of two plots by the natural guardian of two minor girls, on the ground that property was being sold at an inadequate price.4. The respondent No. 1, Smt. Nootan Agarwal moved an application in the capacity of guardian of two minor girls (her own daughters) for selling the plots situate at Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The guardian of the children had indicated in her application seeking permission for the sale on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›