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.
Brij Nandan Nagaich and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ378
ORDERAmar Saran, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed to challenge an order dated 29-10-2005 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, in ST No. 92 of 1995; State v. Bhanu Kachhi, summoning the revisionists under Section 319, Cr. P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.2. The principal ground for challenging the impugned order was that earlier on 5-4-1997, after examination of the informant (brother of the deceased) P.W. 1 Brijesh Kumar, the trial Court had refused to summon the revisionists. Thereafter, after the examination of P.W. 2 Smt. Kanti and P.W. 3 Daya Ram (mother and father of the deceased, respectively) by the impugned order dated 29-1-2005 the revisionists were summoned on the fresh application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the said order amounted to a review of the earlier order dated 5-4-1997 which was prohibited under Section 362, Cr. P.C. Also, there was want of legal evidenc...
Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1262
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This is tenant's petition. By means of Instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1999. passed by the Prescribed Authority, Oral district Jalaun allowing release application of the landlord registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 1997, affirmed by District Judge, Oral district Jalaun vide judgment and order dated 9.5.2003 in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1999.2. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent has five sons, namely, Sri Ram Kishore, Sri Anil Kishore, Sri Raj Kishore, Sri Brij Kishore and Sri NeeraJ Kumar. The petitioner is tenant of the disputed shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The landlord filed release application registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 1997 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he required the disputed shop for setting up his unemployed eld...
Amar Nath Gupta Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1160
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tiwari, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.2. The plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by a judgment dated 5.2.2006. The petitioner filed an appeal. A sum of Rs. 11,697 towards court fee was required to paid by the appellant. The petitioner appellant presented the memorandum of appeal by depositing a sum of Rs. 665 and moved an application seeking time to deposit the remaining court fee. The court vide order dated 9.3.2005 and 15.4.2005 granted time to the appellant to deposit the deficiency of court fee. It transpires that on 16.5.2005, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 6,500 and prayed further time to deposit the balance amount towards the deficiency of the court fee. The Court rejected the application for the extension of the time. It transpires that the petitioner moved a recall application and during...
Mahendra Yadav Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1274
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u), C.P.C. against the order dated 2.2.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Deoria in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1998 whereby it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1997, passed by the Court below and remanded the matter for decision of the suit on merits after giving opportunities to the parties to file evidence.2. The plaintiff, Mahendra Yadav, instituted Suit No. 306 of 1997 against Om Prakash on the allegations that the defendant is living all alone and has been looked after by the plaintiff. He was in need of Rs. 1 lakh in the month of June, 1988, which was advanced by the plaintiff on the understanding that in lieu of money the house of the defendant stood sold. It was also understood that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1 lakh is not returned within a period of five years, there would be a sale deed in pursuance of the understanding arrived at between the pa...
Amit Kumar JaIn Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1391
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 26.12.1998 and 23.8.2006 (Annexures-9 and 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.3. It appears from Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition that Smt. Jaitoon Begum purchased the shop in dispute from Smt. Mustari Bai by registered sale-deed dated 28.6.1984.4. The petitioner claims that the shop in dispute was let out to him in the year 1987 by the then landlady Smt. Jaitoon Begum and prior to 1987 the shop was not let out to any other person, as such 1987 would be deemed to be the date of construction.5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Jaitoon Begum wife of Sri Wali Mohammad and Sri Wali Mohammad sold their respective shares in the disputed property in favour of Sri Rakesh Jain and Smt. Rekha Jain respectively by registered sale-deeds dated 19.12.1995.6. An application for allotm...
Cit Vs. Meghdoot Village Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(All)484
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20-7-2005. The assessment year is 2001-02. Following the two substantial questions of law has been pressed in this appeal :1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,55,428 made by the assessing officer towards commission paid to different whole-sellers that was purported to have been accounted for through credit-notes when not even a single party had actually been paid the said amount and the assessee had failed to establish conclusively that such payment during the year, was warranted by business/commercial expediency.2. Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,43,007 on account of addition of cash credits under Section 68, without appreciating that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus that these Sundry Creditors were genuine and they had the financial capacity to advance the in...
Anwar Vs. Distt. D.D.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1797
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The controversy relates to certain plots of khata No. 4 situated in village Sakhera, Pargana Sandee, Tahsil Bilgram, district Hardoi. In the court of Consolidation Officer on 13.10.1980 a compromise was alleged to be filed by the parties for the plots in question. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer by impugned order dated 14.10.1980 had decided the controversy in terms of compromise. Petitioner had filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 14.10.1980 in the month of June 1987 on the ground that neither he has signed any compromise nor he has engaged Sri R.P. Bajpai as counsel. Petitioner had also submitted that he has not signed any Vakalatnama to engage Sri R.P. Bajpai as counsel. He retired from army on 1.10.1986 and when he came back then he has come to know regarding the devolution of land in terms of compromise between the parties. Copy of the application filed by the petitioner...
Pushpa Devi and anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC612
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri P. K. Ganguli, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The examination of the defence witness Nos. 1 and 2 were closed on 31.1.2005. The defence witness Nos. 3 and 4 were not available on that date. Consequently, the defendant moved an application for adjournment and for fixing a date for the examination of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, on the ground, that the defence witness No. 3 being 80 years old was unwell on account of the extreme cold climate and was unable to come to the Court to lead the evidence. With regard to defence witness No. 4, it was contended that the said witness was a professional handwriting expert and was only available on Wednesday and therefore, some Wednesday be fixed for his examination. This application was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 31.1.2005. A recall application was moved which was rejected by an order dated 28.8.2006 on the ground that the defendan...
Parshadi Lal Verma Vs. Subhash Babu Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1386
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner is tenant in the disputed shop No. 54 situate at Mohalla Najab Ali, Aliganj, district Etah. Respondent-landlord instituted P.A. Case No. 14 of 1995, Subhash Babu v. Parshadi Lal Verma under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of the aforesaid shop on the ground of personal need of his two sons-Sri Diwari Lal and Sri Ajay Kumar for settling them in the shop, in dispute.3. The petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations in the release application, inter alia, that the landlord has no need of the disputed shop as other shops are also in possession of the landlord in Quasba Aliganj.4. Contention of the counsel of the petitioner is that in his replica, the landlord did not specifically deny the availability of alternate accommodation for his sons.5. The parties filed their a...
Rafi Ullah Vs. Dr. Om Hari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1394
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Kannauj passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 1/43 of 2002 as well as judgment and decree dated 18.10.2002 passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Suit No. 1/98 filed by the respondent-landlord in a proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition are that landlord-respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1998. The ground taken in the release application was bona fide and genuine need of the disputed shop of the landlord admeasuring 10 ft. x 21 ft., which was let out to the petitioner's father on rent for tailoring purposes.3. It is alleged i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »