Allahabad Court January 2007 Judgments
Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2636
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Despite time having been granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Today an affidavit has been filed by the respondents annexing therewith the enquiry report, which is being taken on record. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of at this stage.2. The petitioner appeared in High School Examination 2004 and was declared pass with second division marks. In Science Papers I, II and III he was awarded 19, zero and 24 marks respectively and in Social Science Papers I and II he was awarded 30 and zero marks respectively. The petitioner thereafter applied for scrutiny of Science Paper II and Social Science Paper II, in which he had been awarded zero marks. The Assistant Secretary of the Board, by his letter dated 19.1.2005, communicated to the petitioner that after scrutiny there was no change in the marks awarded to him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandrawati Devi Vs. Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1964
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.On the last occasion, Sri Rahul Chaudhary holding brief of Sri Yashwant Verma, counsel for the respondents had taken time to prepare the case but today when the case was taken up in the revised list, he expressed his inability to argue the case.2. This is landlord's petition. Respondent No. 2 is tenant in the shop situated on the ground floor of the residential building of the petitioner situated in Mohalla Maya Bazar, Reti Road, Gorakhpur.3. The case of the landlord-petitioner is that the tenant-petitioner has constructed a house known as 'Sahu Palace' just in front of the shop in dispute.4. Petitioner-landlord filed release application registered as P.A. Case No. 74 of 1992 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972') on the grounds of personal bon fide need and default in payment of rent, house tax a...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjoo Alias Suraj Vs. Nathuni Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1220
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. Plaintiffs suit for cancellation of sale deed was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal before the lower appellate court the decree of the trial court has been reversed and the suit has been decreed.3. Against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006, this second appeal has been preferred. The suit is for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the same was not executed by the plaintiff. Since the original sale deed could not be filed by the parties, the relevant register No. 8 from Sub-Registrar's office was summoned by the trial court from which the photograph of the disputed thumb impressions were taken for expert's opinion. Its comparison was done from the admitted thumb impression of the plaintiff and the expert's opinion on both sides stated that the thumb impression on the register No. 8 were slightly tampered with but the...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mathur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3130
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.2. Counter-affidavit was filed on 13.1.2006 but no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed till date rebutting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit.3. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Tulsi Ram father of the petitioner Sri Satish Chandra had taken the accommodation in dispute from the father of the present respondent-landlord. After the death of Sri Tulsi Ram, the tenancy devolved upon Smt. Surma Devi, his widow and after her death the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs S/Sri Satish Chandra, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The burden of proof was upon Sri Satish Chandra to establish that only he was living with his mother at the time of her death and that his other two brothers had been living separately; but in his written statement, he did not state anywhere that they were living separately. Smt. Surma Devi died in 1984 and there is no whisper since when two brothers started living separately and a...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Har Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2249
R.P. Misra and Shishir Kumar, JJ. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Lalitpur in M.A.C.P. No. 9 of 2005 (Har Kunwar v. Usha Rani). The fact stated in the claim petition is that the claimants-respondents filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs. 16,20,000. It was stated that on 13.1.2005, Nathu Ram deceased was going on a tractor-trolley for the purpose of selling foodgrains in the market at about 1.30 p.m. Makkhan was driving the tractor and due to his negligence, loop of trolley had broken down and as such, Nathu Ram fell on the road and received serious injuries and subsequently died. Criminal Case No. 27 of 2005, under Sections 279, 337, 304A, Indian Penal Code has also been lodged.3. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering evi...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Chand Vs. Vth Addl. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1953
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is landlord of the premises in dispute. The building in dispute is claimed to be about 200 years old.2. Petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972') for release of the premises on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority after considering the material and evidence on record.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1997 which has been dismissed with the condition that the petitioner-landlord will re-construct the building within a period of one year and three months and will hand-over the same area to the tenant which was under his tenancy earlier. The operative portion of the order is as under:12- bl lEcU/k esa loZizFke ;g Li'V djuk ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Paras Tripathi S/O Late R.B. Tripathi, Retired Agriculture Inspect ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1698
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This intra court appeal arises from the judgment dated 11.12.2006 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66565 of 2006 of the petitioner-appellant.2. Heard Shri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri R.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel.3. The fact in brief, giving rise of the present litigation, are that the appellant was working as clerk in the Agricultural Department of the State of U.P. and was allotted a residential accommodation bearing No. D-73, Government Colony, Hussainabad, Jaunpur. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005 but thereafter he did not vacate the house within the period prescribed under the Rules. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur issued a letter dated 4.7.2006 directing him to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over the possession to the person whom it has been allotted after retirement of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: I(2007)DMC721
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is a writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.7.2006 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Complaint Case No. 537/2000, Smt. Urmila v. Kamlesh, and the order dated 4.11.2006 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 862/2006 which has arisen out of the aforesaid order dated 19.7.2006.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that Smt. Urmila, opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition had filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. againt the petitioner Kamlesh (Complaint No. 537 of 2000) with these allegations that her marriage had taken place with the petitioner Kamlesh. Their 'Gaona' was performed five years after marriage. Thereafter she came to the house of Kamlesh and resided with him. Kamlesh got employment at Babhnan Sugar Factory. Then Kamlesh and his family members started to demand Rs. 50,000 in cash, mot...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Electronics Limited Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1211]; (2007)IILLJ863All
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondents 3 and 4 Indrajeet Singh Pal and J.K. Dey Sarkar were two of the employees of the petitioner. Both were suspended pending inquiry on 23.2.1981. Ultimately against both the contesting respondents punishment orders were passed. Against respondent No. 3, Indrajeet Singh Pal, punishment order was passed on 29.9.1981. The punishment was of reduction of pay by five stages with immediate effect Punishment order against J.K. Dey Sarkar was passed on 3.10.1981. The punishment was reduction of pay by three stages.3. During suspension period the contesting respondents were paid subsistence allowance. After punishment orders a dispute arose in respect of payment of balance amount for the suspension period. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. The reference was to the effect as to whether nonpayment of the balance amount for the suspension period from 23.2.1981 to 27.8.1981 in the case of Indrajeet S...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Kumar S/O Late Shri Bir Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR79]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This bunch of writ petition raises common question as to whether the dependents of seasonal employees of Cane Cooperative Societies are entitled for compassionate appointment. Since substantial facts and the issues of law involved are same, they are all being decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, the writ petition No. 40099 of 2006 is taken up as the leading case.3. The father of the petitioner was working as a Seasonal Clerk in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Daurala in district Meerut. He died in harness on 1.6.2005. The petitioner who holds a high school certificate approached the Cane Commissioner through District Cane officer through application dated 13.7.2005 and 22.12.2005 but when no action was forthcoming, he preferred writ petition No. 9893 of 2006 (Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and a learned Single Judge of this Court without going into the merits of the claim or inviting a counter affidavit, vide an o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »