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.
Siya Ram Sharma Vs. Smt. Kumari Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1249
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the landlord of premises No. 340 situate near Kanhaiya Talkies Mohalla Bachoorpur, Town Mughalsarai, tehsil and district Chandauli. She has also six shops out of which two shops were given on rent to the petitioner in 1982 and 1991 on monthly rent of Rs. 500.3. The respondent-landlady filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2003 for decree of eviction and arrears of _rent- in respect of the aforesaid two shops against the petitioner before the Court below.4. The trial court by order dated 19.11.2005 directed the case to proceed ex parte. The petitioner moved an application with copy of the written statement on 28.3.2006 and requested to allow him to submit written statement. He further made an application for allowing him to deposit the entire arrears of rent in the Court. The landlord filed- objection thereto. The court below by order dated 28.8.2006 did not allow t...
Siddhivinayak Paddy Processors Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC1
1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 72 of 2002, whereby and whereunder a recovery certificate has been ordered to be issued for a sum of Rs. 32,34,148.84 along with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the contracted rate jointly and severally against all defendant-appellants.2. The cases of the parties have been elaborately stated in the impugned judgment itself and as such it is not being reiterated in this judgment. Only the salient features are being stated below for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The appellant No. 1 is a proprietary firm and appellant No. 2 is the proprietor of the firm and appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are guarantors, who have guaranteed their entire belongings including immovable properties to secure the loan amount of the Bank. According to the respondent Bank, loan was granted to the appellant No. 1-fi...
Rajesh Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1186
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father working as Constable in Civil Police of Uttar Pradesh died in a road accident on 17 th June, 1992. The petitioner after having obtained Intermediate Qualification sought for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying In Harness) Rules, 1974(hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) but vide impugned order dated 19th December, 2002 the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has rejected his claim only on the ground that the petitioner's father while unauthorizedly traveling by a Matador, met an accident, therefore his death cannot be said to have occurred in the course of employment and he is not entitled for any compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. He submits that the ground on which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rej...
Sheo Nath Son of Gahrawan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC967
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.8.1981 is impugned in the instant writ petition. The controversy in the instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of land situtated in village Pagahi, Pargana Mahaich, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi. After completion of the consolidation, chaks were carved out and the petitioner was allotted chak No. 306 whereas respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are chak holders of chak No. 301. The allotment of chak was notified under Section 20 of the Act and CH Form 23 was confirmed on 10.1.1973. According to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 got the value altered in the original CH Form 23 which resulted in increase of rental value of c...
Rizwan Akhtar Vs. Shrawan Kumar Bhatia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1409
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner claims to be occupying a structure below balcony in House No. 123/376 (New) and 123/110A (Old), Gaderiyanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar since 1996 on rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month as the tenant of respondent No. 1. The structure is bounded by iron grills with the balcony above serving as roof. He carries on the business of welding/repairing of tractor, trolleys etc.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was a tenant and though initially there was no agreement to this effect between the parties but subsequently upon his repeated requests a written permission was granted to him to run the workshop.4. It appears that the landlords had purchased the premises in dispute vide sale deed dated 15.5.1995. It also appears from the record that the landlord was doing the business of welding and repairing of automobile vehicles, i.e., trucks, tractors etc. in the same building and he allowed the petiti...
Ved Prakash Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1587
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner-landlord filed release application 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 shop situated in Mohalla Alinagar, Gorakhpur under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need.3. It was stated in the application for release that his second son who became physically handicapped in an accident as such, the disputed shop was required to settle him in the business of readymade garments. He also claimed that the respondent-tenant has a big house with shop at Diwan Bazar, Gorakhpur in which she is doing business, can shift her business there without any inconvenience. It was also averred that the tenant has another big house at Barhni district Siddharthnagar and her husband also has a house near D.A.V College Gorakhpur as well where the business can be shifted by her.4. ...
Mustaq Alias Mustafa Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3146
Amitava Lala, J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions are Identically placed and analogously heard, therefore, connected for the purpose of disposal by this solitary judgment, which will govern all the matters.2. In the prime writ petition vires of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 (hereinafter called as the Rules) is under challenge. But the basic prayers in all the writ petitions are to quash the First Information Report (hereinafter called as F.I.R.) and not to arrest the petitioners on account of alleged theft of electricity. The contention of the petitioners is that the police has no power to arrest them without any cognizance to be taken up by the appropriate court under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to us, these are rarest of the rare cases where the Court is genuinely called upon to interfere with the cause of arrest.3. Since the vires of the Central Rules under the Act is challenged, the Court was pleased to issue n...
Jagannath Son of Shri Matai Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All26; 2007(1)AWC732
Janardan Sahai, J.1. The petitioners application for cancellation of the patta of respondent No. 5, which was allowed by the Collector. The order was challenged by respondent No. 5 in revision and was set aside by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 5 died on 10.11.2004 but no application for bringing his heirs on record was filed by the petitioner and an order was passed on 17.2.2006 that the writ petition has abated as respondent No. 5 was the sole contesting party. The petitioner has filed this application for recall of the order of abatement dated 17.2.2006. The application has been opposed by Sri S.K. Lal, counsel for respondent.2. It was submitted by Sri S.K. Lal the petitioner's counsel that under Chapter VIII, Rule 38-A of t...
Seema Dubey Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC79
O.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application by Smt. Seema Dubey purported to be under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that Regular Suit No. 397 of 2006, Mr. Kant Dubey v. Seema Dubey, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jaunpur.2. The office has raised following objection regarding maintainability of the application:S.R. has to submit that this application is not maintainable in this Hon. High Court at Allahabad. It should be filed at Lucknow Bench.3. Under Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure the High Court, on the application of any of the parties, may at any stage withdraw any proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. However, question is as to where application for transfer would lie. In my opinion, the relevant provi...
Kaneeza Khatoon Vs. Shobarati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All28; 2007(2)AWC1259
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Since the factual and legal controversy raised in both the writ petitions are similar, they are being decided by this common judgment by treating Civil Misc. Writ No. 3019 of 2001 as leading case.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application dated 2-5-1998 to the effect that on the original plaint her signatures were left out and she may be permitted to sign on the plaint. Application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6-3-1999 passed by Civil Judge, (J.D.) Mau-respondent No. 3.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 6-3-1999, aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a revision which too has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15-5-2000 passed by District Judge, Mau.5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the impugned orders, rejecting application of the petitioner are illegal as it is settled law that irregularitires, if any, may be removed by the concerned party. He urge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »