Allahabad Court February 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.
Zakia Kausar and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2456
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Shahid Masud, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Joshi appearing for contesting respondents.2. Dispute relates to Khata No. 190 situate in village Akka Bheekampur Mustahkam, pargana and district Moradabad which belonged to one Yaseen, who had four sons, namely, Saadullah, Hamid Ullah, Peer Baksh and Saleem. After death of Yaseen, Khata in dispute was inherited by his aforesaid sons and since Hamid Ullah died issueless, his three remaining sons, namely, Saadullah, Peer Baksh and Saleem had one third share each. Peer Baksh sold one half of his one third share, i.e. One-sixth share in khata in dispute to petitioners No. 2 and 3 much before start of consolidation. His name came to be recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the said sale deed and the same is not in dispute in the present petition. He transferred his remaining one-sixth share in khata in dispute in favour of one Naseer son of Bunlyad Ali. Saadullah transferred 1/2 of his 1/3 s...
Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidut Parishad Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Karmchari Ka ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1464
Pradeep Kant and Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ.1. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Karamchari Kalyan Samiti is a recognised association looking after the interest of the officers and employees belonging to , Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes working in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., and other companies. The association has filed this writ petition claiming reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes to the extent of 23% on the post of Directors and Managing Directors in different companies, namely, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and also other power sector companies, i.e., (i) Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Agra; (ii) Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow; (iii) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut; and (iv) Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi, as per the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.2. The petitioner had earlier fi...
Vinay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR870]
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of termination from service.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the post of I Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC). He had gone under training at Sitapur till March 1992 and thereafter he was sent to 30th Battalion of P.A.C, at Gonda. He reported for duty at 30th Battalion of P.A.C. On 7.4.1992 he had gone to home for some personal work and when came back a show cause notice dated 13.4.1992 was served on him as to why he was absent from duty. Thereafter petitioner's services were terminated by impugned order dated 18.4.1992 passed in pursuance to U.P. (Temporary Government Servant) Termination of Service Rules, 1975 (in short 'Rules'). Sole ground advanced by the petitioner's Counsel is that petitioner's services could not have been terminated in pursuance to 1975 rule. I...
Continental Cement Factory Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2009)24VST358(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 29, 2006 relating to the assessment year 1999-2000.2. The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of cement. The assessing authority passed the original assessment order under Section 7 read with Rule 41 on February 28, 2001. It appears that thereafter proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated after the expiry of two years. After giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the assessing authority passed the assessment order on June 25, 2004 estimating the suppressed sales. Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 21 of the Act, the applicant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur vide order dated August 2, 2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed under Secti...
Babu Lal S/O Sri Ram Pal Vs. the State of U.P./Revisional Authority Un ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1207
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Previously petitioner was granted mining lease in respect of an area (Zone No. 14/12) which is not in dispute in the instant writ petition. It appears that petitioner also raised the minerals unauthorisedly from the adjoining area (Zone No. 14/11) which was not allotted to him hence District Magistrate, Allahabad issued a notice to the petitioner on 31.3.2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why total amount of Rs. 9 lacs must not be directed to be deposited by him. In the said notice price of the illegally raised mineral was stated to be Rs. 1,80,000/- and it was further stated that royalty comes to five times of the price hence under Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 petitioner should deposit Rs. 9 lacs. Thereafter in terms of the said notice an order was passed by the District Magistrate on 21.6.2004 determining that petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 9 lacs as indicated in th...
Ganga Charan Rajput Son of Late Ram Swarup Rajput Vs. the State,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1034
K.N. Sinha, J.1.The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was brought before this Court for quashing of the charge sheet dated 3.10.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 2401/2003, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.2. The fact, as unfolded in the petition, is that applicant is a social and political person elected for Lok Sabha twice from Hamirpur. While election were going on in 1996 two groups had exchange of hot words on 18.2.1996 near railway crossing on Samthar Road district Jhansi. Taking advantage of the aforesaid occurrence, a conspiracy was hatched and an F.I.R. was lodged at case crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 395 and 425 IPC police station Moth district Jhansi, in which applicant was also named, though he was neither present on the spot nor participated in the incident. A cross F.I.R. at case crime No. 30A/1996 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 395/34 and Section 3(1) SC/ST Act police station Moth district Jhansi...
Abdul Haee, Vs. Prescribed Authority,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2641
S.U. Khan, J.1. The main issue in between tenure holder and the State is as to whether the sale deeds dated 19.1.1971 and 17.11.1971 are saved by Section 5(6) of U.P Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 or not.2. Earlier proceedings were initiated against the tenure holder Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon. It appears that both Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon and her husband Abdul Quddus petitioner in the second writ petition are the tenure holders. Proceedings were initiated against Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon and land held by her as well as her husband Abdul Quddus was clubbed. Prescribed authority through order dated 29.1.1975, held that there was no vacant land with Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon. State filed appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on 23.2.1976. The aforesaid two sale deeds dated 19.1.1971 and 17.11.1971 were executed by Smt Mahmooda Khatoon and prescribed authority held that the said sale deeds were quite bonafide and for valuable consideration.3. Thereafter on 11.9.1977, fresh...
Subhash Chandra Gupta Son of Sri Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajkiya Uchchata ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1457
Umeshwar Pandey, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The plaintiff appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial court and those findings of the trial court have also been affirmed and first appeal has been dismissed. The plaintiffs suit was for permanent Injunction against the respondents-defendants. He took a case that the plot in dispute being No. 461, area 1.66 acre was alloted to him by Zila Parishad and lease deed in that regard was executed. Out of total area, the plaintiff got possession of only 0.60 decimal and the remaining area 1.06 acre has been illegally continued in possession of the defendant No. 1, which is a Government College. In spite of repeated requests from the side of Zila Parishad as well as the plaintiff, the possession has not been given to the plaintiff by the defendant. Besides the defendant No. 1 is also trying to disturb the plaintiff appellant's possession over the part area of 0.60 decimal of that plot. Thus, for this cau...
Smt. Prabhawati Devi Vs. Ivth Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1357
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlady's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by her against respondents No. 2 and 3 Ghanshyam Das and Gulah Chand. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 397 of 1990 on the file of J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar and was transferred for disposal to 1st Additional J.S.C.C, Kanpur Nagar.2. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 75 per month.3. According to the plaint allegations, Ghanshyam Das was the tenant who had sublet the shop to his real brother Gulab Chand. In the plaint, it was alleged that defendants were liable to eviction on the ground of subletting and default. As far as ground of default is concerned, it does not survive as on the first date of hearing entire arrears of rent were deposited and both the courts below granted benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) to the tenant. The trial court held that subletting was proved hence suit...
Rajendra Prasad Gupta Son of Sri Chhedi Lal Gupta and Sri Ram Trading ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC269
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The facts of the aforementioned three cases are similar and they are accordingly being disposed off by this common order. The petition No. 2079 of 2007 will be the leading case.2. The respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicants and the learned Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar has issued the summons.3. The applicants say that the complaint is time barred because it has not been filed within 30 days after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the notice as contemplated by Sections 138(c) of and 142(b). The two provisions may be extracted for ready reference:138(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.142 (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »