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.
iqbal HussaIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC396
S. N. Srivastava, J.1. The genesis of the controversy involved in the instant petition was the de-recognition order passed by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad by which it was intimated to the Institution by referring to the letter of Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Regional Office, Bareilly dated 14.6.2006, that the Institution has been stripped of recognition of the history as a subject and therefore, it was advised that the students having history as a subject may seek admission elsewhere.2. The present petition has been instituted by one Iqbal Hussain as President of Parent-Teachers Association Shan Inter College, Moradabad, for the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to allow 52 students studying in standard XII having history as one of the subjects in the Institution to appear in Intermediate examination 2006 as regular students.3. From a perusal of the record it would transpire that recognition to the Institution in six su...
Smt. Rafiqunnisa and ors. Vs. Abdul Waheed and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC174
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.3.2002, passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 14 of 1998, Smt. Rqfiqunnisa and Ors. v. Abdul Waheed and Ors. and order dated 20.12.1997, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 10 of 1992, Abdul Waheed v. Smt. Rafiqunnisa and Ors..3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents-landlord that the findings recorded by the courts below in relation to bona fide need on an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act), 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are findings of fact and they cannot be gone in to in writ Jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner cannot oppose the aforesaid application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act in view o...
Phool Chand Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1643
A.K. Yog and O.N. Khandelwal, JJ.1. In pursuance of our order dated 21.8.2006, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Khiri (Sri Basudev Prasad Khare), has appeared before us alongwith the original revenue record, viz. Zild Bandobast Page 288-289 wherein plot No. 324 (total area 38 acre) is shown as 'talab' (pond). Referring to an entry made in red ink (with reference to said plot) at page 288-289, he has stated before us that it is as a consequence of interpolation. In view of the aforesaid categorical stand taken before us, while exercising our extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, we have not only to decide the lis between the parties to the proceedings but also that of the interest of third party, if any, and no one is allowed to take advantage of 'fraud' or 'interpolation' in revenue records.2. The above Writ Petition No. 1688 (MB) of 1993 is by one Phool Chand against the State of U.P., through Secretary, Revenue, Lucknow, the Distr...
Dinesh Kumar S/O Sri Lalloo Singh Vs. Additional District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC459
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Mecrul in S.C.C. Revision No. 38 of 2000, Dinesh Kumar v. Smt. Krishna Rani and Anr. and also against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 passed by the Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut, respondent No. 2 in S.C.C. Case No. 133 of 1997, Smt. Krishna Rani and Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar.3. Smt. Krishna Rani and Sri Raisuddin plaintiff-respondents No. 3 and 4 filed S.C.C. Case No. 133 of 1997 against the petitioner for arrears of rent since 15.11.89 and ejectment from the shop No. 295/2, Sector-2, Scheme No. 7, Shastri Nagar, Meerut (hereinafter referred as the house in question) which was constructed in the year 1986. The house tax of the house in question was decided on 1.4.1992 for the first time and the shop in question was given on rent to th...
Aditya NaraIn and Ajay Kumar Sons of Late Shri Prabhu NaraIn Gupta Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC313
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. Present revision arises out of proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and is directed against the order dated 17th September, 1998 passed by HI Additional District Judge, Ballia, ordering making award of the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court.2 Late Prabhu Narain Gupta along with his two sons Aditya Narain and A. Kumar entered into partnership as first party with Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Shiv Gopal Jaiswal, Ghan Shyam Jaiswal and Smt. Seema Jaiswal as a second party, on 27 September, 1991 to construct a Cinema house and to run a cinema business in the name and style of M/s Shyam Place Chhitbergaon, district Ballia. An arbitration deed was also entered into between the parties on September 16, 1993, Five Arbitrators were named in the said arbitration agreement. A dispute had arisen between the parties, the same was referred to the arbitration of five arbitrators named in the arbitration agreement. The arbitrators after taking into considerati...
Ghaziabad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR473(All)
1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Ghaziabad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., seeks the following relief:(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notice dated March 28, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3 (annexure 8 to the writ petition) appointing special auditor illegally and arbitrarily.(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to stop the proceedings of special audit for the assessment year 2003-04.(iii) To issue any other writ or order which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows.3. According to the petitioner, it is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, with its registered o...
Abhineet Mani Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3599
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The dispute pertains to the grant of licence for retail vend of Foreign liquor at Asuram Chowk and Kusmahi Bazar in the district of Gorakhpur. The petitioner was granted a licence by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, to vend Foreign liquor from aforesaid two shops for the excise year 2002-03. In the next excise year, i.e., 2003-04 the policy of the State Government to grant excise licence was changed. The State Government now decided to grant excise shop by way of renewal to the existing licensees of the excise year 2002-03. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid excise policy applied for and was granted renewal of the licence for the excise year 2003-04. The grant of said renewal of licence in favour of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 4. Sri Rakesh Shukla, by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 528 of 2003, in this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 4.4.2003 with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation...
Ram Asare Vs. Gyan Babu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3822
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri R.S. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Sri R.S. Chauhan submitted that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and that the writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner is a plaintiff and had filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.6.1998. This date '29.6.1998' has been specifically alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint. However, in paragraphs 15 and 16, the date of the sale deed was mentioned as '29.8.1998'. In the prayer clause, the same date '29.8.1998' had been mentioned. The said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 7.9.2004, against which, the petitioner filed a regular appeal before the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner realised that there was a clerical error in paragraph 15 as well as in the prayer clause of the plaint and therefore, moved an application for an amendme...
Udai NaraIn Rai, Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC550
Janardan Sahai, J.1. Gangoo Rai was the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, Deepan Rai, Ram Naresh Rai and Jagar Seth Rai. The petitioners are the descendents of Jagar Seth Rai. The contesting respondents are the descendents of the other two branches. The dispute relates to the land in village Gadua Maqsoodpur. In the basic year these lands were recorded in the names of Ram Briksh Rai, Raj Net Rai, Aas Karan Rai, sons of Deepan Rai, Tannoo Rai, Deo Nath Rai and Bhola Rai descendants of all the three branches. Objections under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Bhola Rai the petitioners predecessor claiming sole tenancy rights. It is not in dispute that these plots were fixed rate tenancy plots of Amrit Rai. His daughter Jinsa Kunwar was married to Jagar Seth Rai ancestor of the petitioners. On the death of Amrit Rai and his widow Lakhna Kunwar the plots in dispute were succeeded to by their daughter Jinsa Kunwar, the wife of Jagar Seth Rai...
Smt. Triveni Giri and ors. Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC385
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri M. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1985, passed in Revision No. 221 of 1980 by the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that predecessor in interest of the petitioners being landlord of the building wherein shop in dispute is situated sought permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 from the District Magistrate to sue the tenants for eviction. The shop it was alleged was required by the landlord. The said application was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by an order dated 24.6.1971. Predecessor in interest of the respondent tenant filed a revision against the aforesaid order and the said revision was dismissed on 17.9.1971 by the Commissioner, Meerut Divisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »