Allahabad Court November 2007 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.
Hira Lal Agarwal Vs. Virendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC419
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri P.K. Singhal, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri Prakash Gupta for respondents. With the consent of the parties the second appeal nominated by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 14.9.2007 was finally heard.2. The defendants-second appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 341 of 1984 for declaration, possession after ejectment of the defendants and Rs. 2,437 with interest w.e.f. 22.12.1975 and mesne profit @ Rs. 60 per month till the delivery of possession. It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased-defendant was the tenant of late Pandit Shiv Narain Sharma and was in possession of the premises. Shri Om Prakash Sharma-the son of Pandit Shiv Narain Sharma was looking after the property and was receiving the rent. By the three sale deeds the property was transferred to the plaintiffs. As soon as the sale deeds were registered, the defendant was informed with the sale and a letter was written on 17.11.1971 by late Pandit Shiv Narain Sharma to pay ...
Afzal Alim Vs. Abdul Mughni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC651
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This second appeal was dismissed on 2.8.2006 for want of prosecution. Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the appellant has filed a restoration application on 20.2.2007 on the ground that by way of bona fide mistake his office had failed to mark the case in the cause list. There is no serious opposition to this application. The cause shown is sufficient. The order dated 2.8.2006 is recalled. The second appeal is restored to its original number and was heard.2. Heard Shri M. A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri B. D. Mandhyan, for the defendant-respondent.3. The Original Suit No. 256 of 1970 was filed by the plaintiff Abdul Hafiz for possession of the disputed property on payment of Rs. 8,000 to the defendant based on the right of pre-emption in the Muslim personal law. The plaintiff alleged that the house in suit originally belonged to one Abdul Qayyum. It consists of two portions namely 'mardana' and 'janana' situate in Village Phalauda...
Panki thermal Power Station through It's General Manager Vs. Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1149]
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Panki Thermal Power Station, Kanpur, seeks to challenge the award dated 31.8.1993 of the Labour Court (III), U.P., Kanpur, declaring that the workman, V.K. Srivatava, was entitled to get the designation and pay of R.G.C. since June, 1973.2. Briefly stated, Sri V.K. Srivastava, workman, was appointed as Daftan with effect from 1.8.1972 vide office memo No. PPB-55- 2A/1423 in the petitioner's establishment which post he joined on 4.8.1972. Vide Office Memo dated 31.3.1978/4.4.1978, he was promoted as R.G.C. since 15.3.1978. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 20.9.1975, the workman was directed to help Sri P.S. Gupta, R.G.C, in his work. It was specifically provided in the order dated 20.9.1975 that the entire responsibility for disposal of the work would be on Sri P.S. Gupta. After the aforesaid order was passed, the workman started helping Sri P.S...
Abdul Salam Alias Babu S/O Ajeemdar Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC399
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned Notification dated 15.06.2006, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) and Declaration dated 19.10.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act, and further direction is sought to release the land in question which is covered by residential area.2. The validity of the acquisition proceedings cannot be examined as the petitioner has challenged it at a belated stage, and it is admitted to the petitioner himself that by invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act the possession of the land has already been taken on 10.08.2007. Had the petitioner been diligent enough and was willing to challenge the acquisition proceedings, he should have approached the Court within reasonable time. Vide Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 865; Hari Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. : [1984]3SCR417 ; Bhoop Singh...
Dheeraj JaIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC10
M.K. Mittal, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet No. 14/02, State v. Dheeraj Jain and Ors. under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act in Criminal Case No. 5066/02 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.2. Heard the applicant Sri Dheeraj Jain in person, and Mr. G.S. Hajela learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and on that basis learned Magistrate directed for registration of the case and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons. The case as taken in the First Information Report is that Smt. Shikha was married with Dheeraj Jain according to Hindu rites on 29.6.2001. Dowry was given at the time of the ...
In Re: Jindal Pipes Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: [2008]88SCL48(All)
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator.2. Through this company petitioner confirmation/sanction by this Court has been sought to the scheme of arrangement between aforesaid transferor and transferee-companies. Scheme of arrangement is Annexure-1 to this petition. The main feature of the scheme of arrangement is to demerge/disinvest the Jindal Invest Division of the transferor-company into the transferee-company. Earlier Company Application No. 06 of 2007 was filed in this regard. In the said application, an order was passed by this Court on 25-5-2007 dispensing with meetings of shareholders/members of transferor and transferee-companies as per the requirements under Sections 391 and 393 of the Companies Act holding of the meeting of creditors of transferee-company was also dispensed with as there was only one creditor of the transferee-company and he had given no objection to the proposed scheme ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›