Allahabad Court September 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.
Lal Mohammad (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1279
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.D. Kesari, advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The orders dated 6.2.1974, 18.6.1974 and 18.2.1975, passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are impugned in the instant writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 concluded that an area 1 bigha, 14 biswa belongs to the contesting respondents. The S.O.C. while confirming the order of the CO. in appeal came to the conclusion that the entire area of the disputed plot No. 117 belongs to the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by all the three orders.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that when the consolidation operation came into effect, plot Nos. 117/1 and 117/2 were recorded in the name of the petitioner and his brother Munna as bhumidhars in the basic year entries. The whereabouts of the petitioner's brother was not known since a very long time, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was that he was exclusive owner of ...
Smt. Anis Fatima Vs. Jagdish Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1181
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. This second appeal has come up for final hearing alongwith Writ Petition No. 32294 of 1990.2. The writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 20.4.1989 and 17.5.1990 in Original Suit No. 1081 of 1986, Shafiuddin v. Mughisuddin and Anr. deciding issue Nos. 4 and 5. These two issues were framed and decided as a preliminary issue. Issue No. 4 was regarding Section 10, C.P.C. and issue No. 5 was on the question of jurisdiction. Learned Vth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut decided issue No. 5 holding that the jurisdiction to decide the suit is with the Court at Hapur, district Ghaziabad. The findings arrived at by the Additional Civil Judge Vth, that Meerut Courts had no jurisdiction was on the basis that the disputed property was situated at Hapur. The disputed agreement to sale was also executed before the Sub-Registrar, Hapur and, therefore, after the new district was carved out, Meerut Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The Court at Mee...
Ramkali W/O Jagmal, Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector and New Okhla ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All8; 2006(4)AWC3875
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anurag Khanna, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. Since a pure question of law is involved, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit.3. The land of the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, commonly known as NOEDA. Against an offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and an award was given by the District Judge, against which, NOIDA filed a First Appeal before this Hon'ble Court in which an interim order for the payment of the compensation to the heirs of the claimant, was passed. Against the said award, the petitioners also filed a First Appeal for the enhancement of the compensation. Prior to the award given b...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. D.K. Mittal and the Presidin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR505]
Vineet Saran, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ' the Corporation') in the year 1990 and worked continuously till 29.6.1997. The brief facts of this case are that while the Respondent No. 1 was on duty as Conductor of Bus No. UP -78N/1401 on Kanpur Delhi route, he was caught red handed by the checking staff and found carrying 42 passenger without tickets. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 was suspended and a charge sheet dated 7.9.1996 was served on him. After the domestic enquiry was conducted and the charges leveled against the Respondent No. 1 were found to be proved, he was dismissed from service order dated 30.6.1997. The departmental appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed on 22.8.1998. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government under Section 4-f of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Respo...
Smt. Anjali Awasthi Vs. Mohd. Shafique
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC350
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is landlady's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2004 passed by Shri Gopal Shanker Pathak, J.S.C.C./ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. suit No. 15 of 2002.2. The applicant claiming himself as owner and landlady of house No. 111/98 (14A) Ashok Nagar instituted S.C.C. suit No. 15 of 2002 against the defendant opposite party on the allegations that she purchased the aforesaid house from its erstwhile owner Shri Salauddin son of Shamsuddin Ahmed by means of a registered sale deed dated 25th of November, 1999. The defendant (hereinafter described as tenant) was the tenant of ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000 in addition to 18 per cent water and other taxes etc. He defaulted in making payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2000. to 31.12.2001 and is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 63,000 and a sum of Rs. 11,304 as water tax and sewer charges. The ...
Basant Lal and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All32
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. Second Appeal No. 2576 of 1983 was filed on 11-11-1983. By the order dated 22-2-1984, the Second Appeal was admitted and notices were directed to be issued.2. It further appears that a Stay Application, namely, Civil Misc. Application No. 4247 of 1983 (dated 11-11-1983) was also filed along with the Second Appeal. By the order dated 22-2-1984 passed on the said Application, notices were directed to be issued on the said Application, and in the meanwhile, the operation of the decree of the lower Court was stayed. The said order dated 22-2-1984 is reproduced below:Issue notice.Meanwhile the operation of the decree of the lower Court shall remain stayed.3. It further appears that by the order dated 24-4-1984, the said Interim Order dated 22-2-1984 was confirmed subject to certain directions. The said Order dated 24-4-1984 is quoted below:Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The interim order dated 22-2-1984 staying the operation of the decree of the lower Court ...
Lal Chand and ors. Vs. Mst. Atwari (D) Represented by Dukhran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC548
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shrl G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants.2. This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree passed by IVth Additional Munsif, Varanasi in Suit No. 721 of 1970, Lal Chand and Ors. v. Mst. Atwari and Ors. dated 27.1.1973, dismissing the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.7.1967, executed by Jagarnath, defendant No. 2 in favour of Mst. Atwari, defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs also sought a relief that if it was found that they are not in possession, the possession of the disputed plot be given to them. The Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1973 were dismissed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi on 19.9.1975, confirming the judgment of the trial court.3. The defendant No. 2 Jagar Nath is plaintiffs uncle. It was alleged that Shri Vishwanath, the plaintiffs father died leaving plaintiffs as their heirs and in possession of the properties as members of joint Hindu family. Defendant No. 2 claimed himself to be a 'sadhoo' and often lived outside the ...
Smt. Munari (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Sumanta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1251
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri B.N. Asthana, senior advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Mishra, advocate for the contesting respondent.2. The order dated 5.11.1984, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is impugned in this writ petition.3. The dispute between the petitioner and contesting respondent revolves round a gift deed in respect of Khata No. 127 which was executed by Smt. Lal Dei. She had 1/3 share in the aforesaid khata. She died in the year 1974 leaving behind three daughters namely Smt. Munari, Smt. Sumanta and Smt. Samari. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sumanta claimed exclusive title to the entire share of Lal Dei on the basis of a hibbanama executed by Lal Dei on 5.4.1974. On commencement of consolidation proceedings, an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act was filed. A prayer was made that the name of Smt. Lal Dei be expunged and in her...
Sita Ram (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC357
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of common judgment dated 17.12.1979 in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1979 and 36 of 1979 (cross-appeal) against the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1979 passed by 4th Munsif, Jhansi dismissing suit Nos. 155 of 1971 and 7 of 1971, by judgment dated 2.1.1979.2. The plaintiff Sita Ram filed suit No. 155 of 1971 for ejectment of defendant Shanker Lal from the disputed house and for damages with the allegations that he had allowed the defendant to occupy a room in the house as licensee for his services. The licence was revoked but he did not vacate the disputed portion.3. The defendant Shanker Lal filed a written statement and pleaded that he was adopted by the plaintiff Sita Ram in 1946 and since then he is living in the disputed house as a member of the plaintiffs family and has become co-owner of the disputed house. His wife and sons are also living with him in the house and that their occupation is not confined to only one room.4. The other ...
Shio Prasad Vs. Banshi Mohan Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1578
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a tenant of shop, in question for the last about 15 years at the rate of Rs. 82.50P per month besides taxes. He claims that his business of manufacturing tin boxes etc., from the said shop is the sole source of livelihood.3. In 1996, S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1996 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for a decree for ejectment of the petitioner as well as for a decree of recovery of sum of Rs. 2227.50P towards rent and damages for use and occupation of the aforesaid shop. The suit was filed with the allegation that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent and also on the ground that he has sublet the shop to one Sri Munshi Lal.4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations levelled in the plaint. Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit vide order dated 17.12.2004.5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 in S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1996, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »