Allahabad Court February 2007 Judgments

Kunwar Pai, Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1460

Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Singh Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh appearing for the contesting respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4th January, 2007 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding six revisions by a common order filed by the contesting respondents under Section 48(1) of UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the writ petition are; proceedings under the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 started in the village. In the basic year records on the land in dispute the names of the tenure holders were recorded including one Smt. Nirmala Devi respondent No. 8 With regard to Khata No. 524 the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an 'order on the basis of the compromise partitioning the Khata amongst the tenure holders. By order dated 10th July, 1985 Sri Sukhbir Singh was allocated 1/2 share. Sri Dha...

Hakeem Riyazul Islam Vs. Usman Ali Sabri and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2643

S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. A double (or triple) storied house situate In Mohalla Khokharan Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as house In question) was admittedly owned by Smt. Taiyaba Khatoon who died issueless on 5.9.1945. She left behind her husband Mahboobur Rahman and her brother Mohd Saml as her heirs. These two persons died in 1953. It is alleged that Mohd Saml left behind four sons and two daughters however In respect of matter in dispute only two of the sons of Mohd. Saml are relevant, i.e., Mohd Rafi and Mohd Razl. The other two sons and two daughters are reported to have migrated to Pakistan. Respondent No. 3 Smt Akhtar Jahan is widow of Mohd Rafi (Mohd Rafi died in 1997). Mohd Rafi claimed that Smt Taiyaba Khatoon had executed a Will in his favour In the year 1943. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Usman Ali Sabri and Zafar Iqbal purchased the house In question from Smt Akhtar Jahan widow of Mohd Rafi in the year 1999. Late Mohd Rafi let out the first fl...

Fazlur Rehman Vs. Sessions Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: II(2007)DMC259

Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Mr. K.A. Qayyum, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. The prayer in the instant writ petition is to quash the order dated 19.02.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Basti and order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti.3. According to the petitioner, he divorced his wife Smt. Noor Jahan, respondent No. 4. An application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed on 4.4.2006 claiming maintenance for herself and her two minor children aged about 12 and 2 years respectively. The case was numbered as Case No. 56/11/2006. The objections were filed by the petitioner on 27.7.2006 stating therein that he had divorced his wife on account of infidelity and refusal to discharge marital obligations. The amount of Mehar and maintenance allowance for the Iddat period is paid as well as her personal belonging have already been returned and,. therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance whats...

Paras Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)13VST490(All)

Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the department.2. This trade tax revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 arises out of order of Trade Tax Tribunal dated January 2, 2007 by which the Second Appeal Nos. 941 of 2003 for the assessment year 1998-99 ; 193 of 2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 593 of 2003 for the assessment year 2000-01, were allowed with the findings that 'Boro Soft' cream manufactured by the assessee at Gujarat and sold in Uttar Pradesh after receiving by stock transfer is to be taxed under the entry 'all kinds of cosmetics' at 15 per cent and not as 'ayurvedic medicine' at eight per cent.3. The assessing authority on remand found that 'Boro Soft' is a cosmetic and will fall within the entry of 'all kinds of cosmetics and preparation' under notification dated September 7, 1991. The Joint Commissioner (Appeal), however, found that 'Boro Soft' is used as medicine and that the Joint Commiss...

Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur Son of Late Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The dispute involved in this OA is whether the applicant who was recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board for the post of Apprentice Mechanic. He was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board through an examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board in the year 1983. On 12.04.1985 he completed his probation. However, the respondents did not issue him the appointment letter.2. The two private respondent No. 4 and 5 however, were recruited for the same post by the departmental selection. They were previously working with the respondents as regular employee and in 1984 they were selected for the post of mechanic. Thereafter they underwent training for fifteen months and completed the same on 09.05.1985. The private respondent No. 4 and 5 however, were offered appointment letter on 18.05.2005 and the applicant was offered appointment letter on 24.05.2005. For the reasons all the applicant join six days after the date of joining of the private respondents he was treated j...

Kayam Singh S/O Sri Jai Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1453

Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners who are defendants in the suit, filed this writ petition against the order dated 22nd September, 2005 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed and the orders passed by the trial court dated 10th September, 1991 and the order passed by the lower appellate court, i. e. Commissioner dated 2nd March, 1998 were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff, who are respondents, in this writ petition, has been decreed.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act against the petitioners for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners are trace passers therefore, they are liable to be evicted. The petitioner, defendant in the suit, took up the plea that their houses are in existence over the land in dispute for the last more than 20 years and that their houses are in existence before 15th March, 1974 and al...

Munna Lal Vs. Special Judge (Anti Corruption) and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2261

Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'.2. The brief facts of the present case are that contesting respondent-landlord filed an application on 28th August, 1995 purporting to be an application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' for the release of the accommodation in question in which the shop in dispute is situated on the ground of bona fide requirement. This application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' filed by the respondent-landlord was contested by the petitioner-tenant denying the need set up by the landlord. The prescribed authority vide order dated 20th January, 1997 allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlord holding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and in comparison...

Jagdish Kumar and ors. Vs. Viith Addl. Civil Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2464

ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents, hence only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. Respondents 3 and 4 Guru Prasad and Ram Sanehi, filed O.S. No. 36 of 1969 against the petitioners. Suit was decreed. First appeal was dismissed. Second Appeal (Second Appeal No. 1574 of 1977) was also dismissed by this Court on 17.4.1983. Thereafter Review Application No. 86 of 1983 was also dismissed on 22.2.1984. Thereafter execution was filed being Execution Case No. 13 of 1980. Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur directed delivery of possession of the property to the decree holders-respondents 3 and 4 in execution. The possession was consequently delivered on 21/27.1.1984. Thereafter petitioners filed O.S. No. 80 of 1984 before Munsif Hawaii, Kanpur. The said suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming therein that in execution of the earlier decree plaintiff-petitioners had been dispossessed...

Dinesh Singh Vs. Addl. District Judge and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2708

Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the revisional court dated 3rd September, 2005 whereby a revision filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 2 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short C.P.C), as amended in the State of U.P., has been allowed and an application 7C moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, for grant of temporary injunction was also allowed and temporary injunction was granted by the revisional court till the decision of the suit.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, filed a suit before the trial court before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur being Suit No. 350 of 2004. Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, C.P.C, numbered as 7C for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. ...

Vishal Chand JaIn Vs. Ixth Addl. District Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3114

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This is landlords petition. Petitioner-landlord filed release 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'), registered as P.A Case No. 1 of 1996 on the ground that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition being more than 70 years old, hence required demolition and reconstruction. The landlord also alleged that the tenants have not paid rent and taxes since 16.5.1984 and the shop in dispute has been sub let to one Sri Ali Nawaj son of Sri Abdul Wajeed.3. Original tenant Sri Lateef Ahmad died in 1984 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were substituted as his legal heirs and representatives. The tenancy devolved upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they are in occupation of the tenanted accommodation.4. The respondent-tenants contested the release application by filing written statement d...