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.
Parul Gupta @ Amish Gupta S/O Late Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs. the District ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC822
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Release application (Rent case No. 1 OS of 1985) under Section 21(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the landlord was allowed as far back as on 17.7.1992 by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.3. Aggrieved by order dated 17.7.1992, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed Rent Appeal No. 170 of 1992 which was also dismissed vide judgement dated 16.8.1993.4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 tiled Civil Misc. Writ No. 30643 of 1993 which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.1 1.1994.5. After dismissal of the writ petition, an application was moved for grant of time to vacate the accommodation. The High Court vide order dated 17.11.1994 granted 6 months time to the tenant to vacate the disputed accommodation on the condition of undertaking to be given by the tenants within three w...
Mullu Son of Kaliya Vs. Deputy Director (Consolidation) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4136
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.2.1978 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Hamirpur dated 30.6.1980.3. The disputed Khata No. 136 was initially in the name of the petitioner-Mullu, Ramkishan and respondent No. 3 Bhagwandin, respondent No. 4 Swamidin and respondent No. 5 Murliya. The share of contesting respondents was 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the petitioner Lallu and Ramkishan, who are real brothers. They have not been made party by the petitioner and there is no dispute regarding their 1/2 share. The dispute relates to 1/2 share of the respondents. In respect of share of respondents, an order was passed on 2.9.1974 by the S.D.O. Munderha to mutate the name of the p...
Shanti Niketan Inter College Through Its Principal Ram Mohan Upadhyaya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC825
Arun Tandon, J.1. Respondent No. 4 Shri Ram Shanker Chaubey was appointed as Peon in Shanti Niketan Inter College, Chhatahari, District Siddharth Nagar. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the allegation which among other included submission of forged document at the time of entering into the service. The order of suspension was challenged by means of writ petition No. 51060 of 2005. However the suspension was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools. The Principal of the institution filed Writ Petition No. 51060 of 2005 wherein an interim order was passed on 20,7.2005 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the Principal as well as the employee concerned. The District Inspector of Schools by means of the order dated 18.10.2005 revoked the order of suspension, as a result whereof Shri Ram Shanker Chaubey was restored back in service. The said writ petition has become infructuous in view of the final punishment...
B.P.L. Display Devices Workers Union, Through Its Joint Secretary Shri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1003]
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 3.8.2000 (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition), stated to have been issued to the petitioner on 31.5.2001.2. It is, interalia, stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner is a registered Trade Union under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, and its registration number is 7591 ; and that the establishment of the respondent No. 2 has Certified Standing Orders governing the service conditions of all the workers of the establishment of the respondent No. 2.3. It is, interalia, further stated in the Writ Petition that the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short 'the Standing Orders Act, 1946'),interalia, proposing amendments/additions in the said Certified Standing Orders.4. Copy of the said proposed amendments/addi...
Sabzi Mandi Adhati Association Through Its Manager/Secretary Naresh Pa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1786
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation the petitioners have come up with the grievance that respondent No. 2, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow through its Chairman and respondent No. 3, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Firozabad are not taking appropriate steps under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against respondent No. 4, Sabzi Adhati Association, Lalpur, Firozabad through its President Sri Naseer Ahmad, who are not only flouting the provisions of the Act but also acting contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 dated 18.11.2004.2. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that so far as relief No. 2 is concerned, he has been advised not to press it. It is further urged that respondent No. 4 is engaged in wholesa...
Jagat NaraIn Nigam Vs. Suraj Prasad Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC588
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of orders dated 3.3.2005 and 2.8.2005, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 and the Prescribed Authority respectively.2. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Eviction and Rent) Act, 1972, praying for release of the tenanted accommodation of house No. 106/30, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. The petitioner is tenant of the aforesaid house of monthly rent of Rs. 150. The tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide notice but he did not vacate the accommodation. According to the landlord, the accommodation in his possession consisted of three rooms, two store rooms, verandah-cum-kitchen, latrine, bath-room and a box room, which was insufficient for his large family whereas the petitioner-tenant has four rooms, latrine, bathroom, store, angan and one tin shed which ha...
Battu Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC545
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the appellate authority dated 10.8.2006 by which appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of the fair price shop licence was admitted but prayer for grant of stay has been rejected.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that appellate authority in not granting stay to the petitioner has committed a manifest error as licensing authority while passing order of cancellation has not examined the merits in the explanation so given by the petitioner against the show-cause notice/charge-sheet and in a cryptic and arbitrary manner order has been passed. Submission is that petitioner by giving details and by placing documents before licensing authority has fully proved that charges against him are false, motivated and superfluous and therefore, as that was not considered, it was for appellate authority to have applied his mind to th...
Raj Mangal (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC896
ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, earned Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the contesting respondents.2. The order dated 19.10.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria is impugned in the instant writ petition. The dispute relates to Plot No. 941 having an area 25 decimal only, which was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 Shyam Deo son of Ram Sewak, respondent No. 3, Janardan and Narender sons of Ram Deo in the basic year Khatauni. The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the disputed land. The controversy arose on account of reason that the contesting respondents instituted a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration over the plot in question. The respondents claimed that the disputed land belong to them and also that the name of the petitioner be expunged. This suit was decreed ex parte on 10.1.1973, consequent thereof the name of the contesting respondents was recorded. When the petitioner came...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sadiram Ganga Prasad (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(All)125; [2008]304ITR413(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court:Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'gross maintainable rent' should be adopted on the basis of 'annual reasonable rent' as per UP Rent Control Legislation ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1976-77.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee, an HUF, owns a building, which was occupied by the assessee for its own residential purposes. The value of that property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. The question that arose was as to what should be the 'gross maintainable rent'. The contention of the assessee before the CWT(A) was that 'gross maintainable rent' should be taken to be the municipal valuation as determined by the Cantonment Board. It ...
Hirdaya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC547
ORDER1. The petitioner was working as a permanent Gangman in the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Nagar Mahapalika') since 1981. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 1.7.1990 to 11.10.1993. However, he came to the Department on 11.10.1993 and submitted the medical certificate as well as the fitness certificate and sought permission to join the post. The copy of the 'Note' which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition indicates that certain recommendations were made by the office to the Administrator of Nagar Mahapalika for permitting the petitioner to join but no orders were communicated to the petitioner as a result of which the present petition was filed on 5.9.1994, for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to join and pay his monthly salary as well as the arrears of salary.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been mentioned that the petitioner unauthorisedly remained absent from 1.7.1990 to 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »