Allahabad Court February 2007 Judgments

Gulfan and ors. Vs. Ravi Gandhi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1951

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This is tenant's petition. S.C.C. Suit No. 212 of 1980 was filed by Smt. Parwati Gandhi, mother of the respondent-landlords, inter alia, that the tenants have made material alterations diminishing the value and utility of the suit property and that they have not paid rent from August, 1970.3. The tenants deposited rent in Court for the period May, 1977 to April 1980 which was accepted by the landlords. Therefore, the tenants claimed that the notice terminating the tenancy stood waived. They also filed ' written statement denying the plaint allegations.4. The trial court vide judgment dated 29.2.1996 dismissed the suit holding that there was no material alteration in the shop in dispute and that the tenants having remitted the rent in Court without any default, notice terminating the tenancy stood waived.5. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred Rent Revision No. 148 of 1996, which has been allowed by the revision...

Smt. Uma Singhania and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector (Collection), Trad ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2009)20VST252(All)

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. From the respondents' side, a counter-affidavit and two supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the act of the respondents trying to recover trade tax dues against the company known as Idol Commerce Private Limited, Kanpur, of which at one time the petitioners were admittedly directors.3. The petitioners claim to have resigned from the directorship and in any case, they contend that even if the petitioners continued to be directors, the trade tax dues could not be recovered from the personal assets of the directors as the liability of the petitioners as directors is also limited.4. The defence of the Trade Tax Department in the counter-affidavit appears to be that the resignation from directorship was not intimated by the petitioners to the Trade Tax Department till quite l...

Ravindra Sharma S/O Sri Gaya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant has prayed for quashing the enquiry proceedings including the order dated 24.02.1997 communicated vide letter dated 16.06.1997 (Annexure- 3 to the O.A), letter dated 07.03.1996, 24.06.1996 and 11.12.1999 issued by the Enquiry Officer (Annexure- 1, 2 and 4 respectively to the O.A) coupled with prayer for restraining the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry afresh after it was closed on 08.01.1994.2. In brief, the case of the applicant is that he worked as Casual labour for some period in the year 1979 namely from 16.06.79 to 30.06.79 (15 days), 29 days in July, 1979, 28 days in August, 1979, 17 days in October, 1979, 15 days in November, 1979, i.e for total 106 days under Work Inspector, North Eastern Railway, Chhappara. He has stated that the applicant was issued a work certificate, which he submitted to the Enquiry Committee on 12.08.1989 for the purposes of verification of the working period. In the year 1992, He was served with a charge sheet alleging that ...

Surjan Singh Son of Shrioman Singh and ors. Vs. Special (Addl. Distt.) ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1458

S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.1983 passed by Prescribed Authority, Fatehpur/Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur under Section 10 (2) of UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and order dated 7.5.1984 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Fatehpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1983, which was directed against the order dated 31.3.1983.3. Aman Singh and Shiromani Singh were real brothers. Aman Singh executed a registered Will deed on 13.10.1978 in favour of grand sons of Shiromani Singh bequeathing them his agricultural land. Aman Singh died in 1979. Thereafter ceiling proceedings were initiated against Shiromani Singh. Prescribed Authority held the Will to be fictitious on the ground that it was executed to avoid the future ceiling proceedings which might be initiated against Shiromani Singh. The order was passed by the prescribed authority/S.D.O. Fatehpur in case No. 14 of 1981 under ...

Ram Dhani S/O Sri Ram Deen Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secreta ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR35]

Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order dated 22.3.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 Deputy District Magistrate, Bindki, District Fatehpur and the order dated 13.9.04 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Additional District Magistrate, Fathepur.3. By the first order, punishments have been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as a Lekhpal, has suffered punishment of salary, being reverted to original pay scale. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of any emoluments other than the suspension allowance, for a period of suspension and, thirdly, adverse entry has been recorded on the service book of the petitioner. Against these orders of punishments, the petitioner filed an appeal to the respondent No. 2 under Rule 12 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the respondent No. 2 the appellate authority ...

Mohammad Ali Umar Son of Naseer Vs. Hasan Mohammad Umar Son of Shamshu ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2507

S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 1.5.2001 passed by District Judge dismissing revision preferred against the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by Trial Court rejecting amendment application.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.3. Facts borne out from the record are that plaintiff filed a Suit No. 395 of 1978 for possession of land In dispute, for demolition and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of petitioner's house.4. It appears from the record that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, averments are that the plaintiff purchased the land in suit from Smt. Fatma through sale deed dated 15.5.1978. Thereafter defendant forcibly and illegally took possession of a portion of land in suit. By way of amendment petitioner wanted to amend one word in plaint by substituting year 1978 in place of 1977 on the ground that by clerical error, Instead of...

Ram Sewak and Ram Sagar Sons of Sempat Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through A ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2689

S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of this writ petition, petitioners are challenging order dated 21st October, 2000, passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. at Allahabad and the order dated 17.6.1996, passed by the Additional Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Protocol), Varanasi imposing an additional stamp duty of Rs. 18342-50 and the penalty of Rs. 36,685/-.2. The facts borne out from the record makes it clear that petitioners, who are real brothers, purchased Plot No. 630, area 24 decimal situated in Village Karnadadi, Pargana Kaswar, Tehsil & District Varanasi. A report was submitted by the Sub Registrar, Gangapur, that the share of both the transferees will come to 0.12 acre each and, therefore, valuation of the land under the sale deed should be assessed treating it non-agricultural land. On the said report, notice was issued to petitioners, who filed their objection pleading therein that the land was purchased for agricultural purposes, assessment was made on ...

Narendra Kumar Shukla S/O Sri Girja Shanker Shukla Vs. State of U.P. T ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR32]

Bharati Sapru, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 3.1.03 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur, who has refused to grant to the petitioner relief of pension, Insurance, Provident Fund and other benefits due to the late mother of the petitioner and has also refused to give to the petitioner employment on the post of a clerk under the Dying and Harness Rules.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that the petitioner's mother Shankuntala Devi was working on the post of a Head Mistress in Kanya Primary Pathshala, Anug, District Fatehpur.4. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's mother rendered continuous service from the year 1969 to 2001. During the course of her employment, the petitioner's mother died...

Rajpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1471; [2008(119)FLR941]

G.P. Srivastava, J.1. These are appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 19.2.1987 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 96 of 1983 and 14 others which were consolidated and the L.A.R. No. 96 of 1983 was made a leading case.2. All those references arose out of the award dated 15.12.1981 given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad in respect of 39- 323 acres of land of village Mohammadpur Khuralia Pargana and Tehsil Garh, district Ghaziabad. The said land was acquired for the construction of Madhya Ganga Nahar, Nirman Khand 9, Garh, Ghaziabad. The notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was published on 28.7.1979 and notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 of the said Act was published on 15.9.1979. Possession of the land was taken on 21.11.1979. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500 per bigha. The claiman...

Keshav Prasad Vs. Satendra Kumar Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1503

Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri N.C. Rajwanshi, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Manik Chandra Misra, appearing for the respondents.2. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that this appeal at the admission stage may be decided finally. As such the appeal is being taken up for final disposal.The appeal be admitted.3. The following substantial question of law is formulated.Whether the lower appellate court, has committed patent legal error in not placing reliance upon the fact that the continuous payment of rent by the plaintiff to the defendants in respect of the disputed premises after the death of the original tenant had conferred the status of tenant on such plaintiff.4. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby the judgment of the trial court has been reversed, is under challenge in this appeal.5. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for injunction to restrain the respondents-defendants from ille...