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.
Mangal Singh Gram Pradhan and ors. Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2694
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2006 passed by the first appellate court whereby it has allowed the respondent-plaintiffs appeal and has decreed the suit for permanent injunction.3. The respondent came before the trial court with a case in his plaint that he is having possession over the disputed land area 150 sq. yard by virtue of an allotment by Gaon Sabha and that the said possession is continuing since 1987. The defendants were trying to disturb the possession in one or the other manner and therefore the relief. The suit was contested by the appellants defendants stating that the property in respect of which the plaintiff claimed his title is actually not belonging to him nor it was ever allotted in his favour by the Gaon Sabha. It is a piece of land, which has been duly allotted in the year 1994 for construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial. The plaintiff has no right to get the relief of per...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Red Rose School
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(All)394
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, by means of which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessee has made out a case for registration and thereby setting aside the orders passed by the CIT, rejecting his application filed under Section 12AA of the Act.2. The assessee society moved an application under Section 12AA of the Act, claiming registration saying that the assessee was running an institution solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit and, therefore, was entitled for being registered.The CIT called for a report from the concerned ITO, who stated that the assessee society was registered on 29th March, 1982, of which Smt. Shashi Mishra was the president and Sri R.C. Mishra, her husband, was Mantri/Manager of the society. The said society was running school at Rajajipuram, Lucknow and at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The third branch of the ins...
Sri Thakur Rangiji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Vs. Gaur Chand Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1209
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Murlidhar, senior advocate, assisted by Sri H.P. Pandey, on behalf of the appellant and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this appeal shall be heard and finally disposed of at this stage.2. In the present matter, the trial court, i.e., Assistant Collector first class in a suit under Section 171 of U. P. Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has framed preliminary issue No. 7 for decision and has decided it holding that since the property in question, which is an 'abadi' land, the jurisdiction in regard thereto for the relief claimed in the plaint is not available with the revenue court presided over by the Assistant Collector. This sort of relief can be granted only by the civil court and that suit for possession should have been filed only in that Court. Accordingly, holding that the suit being not maintainable before the Assistant Collector, the trial court has passed the impug...
Devi Prasad and ors. Vs. Shri Rameshwar Puri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1225
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. There is a temple known zas Ram Mandir in Vishwanath Gali in district Varanasi and adjoining it is a temple of Annapurna Devi which 4s alleged to be a math. It transpires that the said Ram Mandir was founded by Sri Purshottam Das and that the temple was managed by Purshottam Das and Shivnath Puri. After their death, the heirs of Purshottam Das started claiming that they were the exclusive sibaits of the temple on the ground that the right of sibaitship vested in Purshottam Das who was the sole founder of the temple and that Purshottam Das had nominated his son as his successor. Tribhuwan Puri claimed that the office of sibaitship of Ram Mandir was vested in the mahant of the math Annapurna Devi and. by virtue of being the mahant of the math of Annapura Devi, he had the right of being the sibait of Ram Mandir. This dispute led to the filing of a suit in the year 1959, seeking a relief for a declaration, that the plaintiff, being the son of the founder of the temple ...
Muzaffarnagar Eye Relief Society and ors. Vs. Vth Addl. District and S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1359; [2007(113)FLR257]
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No. 3 Dr. Shailendra Kumar filed a suit against the petitioners being O.S. No. 228 of 1980 before Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar seeking declaration to the effect that his termination order by the defendant dated 31.8.1980 was illegal and he must be declared to be in continuous service since then and for recovery of Rs. 46,553.30 as arrears of salary and travelling allowance, etc. Respondent No. 3 was working on the post of Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.) in Nehru Eye Hospital, Muzaffar Nagar petitioner No. 3, which is run by petitioner No. 1 Society which was defendant No. 1 in the suit. According to the petitioners defendants, services of respondent No. 3 plaintiff were terminated on account of the serious charges of corruption, nepotism and slackness in duty. The suit was decreed ex parte on 24.3.1986 by IIIrd Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Relief of recovery of Rs. 46,553.30 was, granted and order dated 21.8.1980 was dec...
Uttam Chand Prajapati Vs. Narendra Narayan Bhatnagar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2682
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.D. Tiwari learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, has been preferred against the order dated 25.11.2006, whereby the petitioner-tenant's application for permission to deposit the shortfall in the amount calculated under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') was rejected.3. The petitioner had claimed the benefit of the aforesaid Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act and had made deposits of Rs. 16,000 in that context in the trial court. While considering the plea of the tenant on this point, the trial court at the time of delivery of judgment found that this amount, which is claimed to have been deposited, was short by Rs. 11,706.18 paise. Accordingly, this suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed eviction of the ...
Jagrup Prasad S/O Late Palak Dhari Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR81]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Mehta for the respondent No. 3, the Official Liquidator and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.2. The relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in any Government Department in pursuance of the U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Services Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Absorption Rule, 1991).3. The petitioners claim to have been appointed on work-charge basis on various Group-C and Group-D posts in the erstwhile U.P. Cement Corporation Limited prior to 1.10.1986. It is also pleaded that in pursuance of an order dated 1.10.1980 they were absorbed against regular posts. However, the said Corporation was wound up by an order of this Court dated 8.12.1999 which was upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 31.7.2000 and the petition filed by the Trade union of the Employees of the Co...
Naseeb Singh Vs. Mukesh Pandit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2701
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2006 passed by the lower appellate court whereby It has reversed the judgment of the trial court and has decreed the respondents' suit for specific performance of contract.3. The aforesaid relief of specific performance of contract was sought on the basis of registered agreement dated 7.5.1997 allegedly executed by the respondent defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 did not come to contest the suit and the subsequent purchaser, the defendant No. 2 did appear and filed his written statement stating that no agreement with regard to the disputed property was ever executed by his vendor, the defendant No. 1 and if there is any such document relied upon by the plaintiff, it is just a forged document. It is further pleaded that the defendant No. 2 appellant had no knowledge of such agreement and he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notic...
Khusihal Verma Vs. Om Prakash Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3107
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.4.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-8) passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 56 of 2005 and Khusihal Verma v. Om Prakash and the order dated 23.3.2005, passed by J.S.C.C, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 21/74 of 2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).2. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.3. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.2. The facts culled out of the record are that the petitioner is the tenant of one khapraildar room of House No. 84/59, Sharab Mill Ka Ahata, J. K. Cotton Mill, Gate No. 2 AnwarganJ, Kanpur and the respondent is the landlord of the said aforesaid premises. The respondent filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. ...
Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. Amrit Lal S/O Late Jagannath Prasad,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1046]
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Amrit Lal Gupta was an employee of Hindalco Industries. His services were terminated on 30.1.1990 by the employer Hindalco. In respect of the said termination, industrial dispute was raised and State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, U.P Varanasi where matter was registered as Adjudication case No. 1 of 1991 connected with Misc. Case No. 1 of 1990. Presiding Officer of the Labour Court gave the award on 13.8.1997 (Misc. Case No. 1 of 1990 was in respect of permission sought by the employer under Section 6(E) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for terminating the services of Amrit Lal Gupta the workman). In the very second paragraph of the award, Labour Court has mentioned that on 30.7.1997, it had already given decision holding that departmental proceedings were fair and proper. Thereafter, it was mentioned in the said paragraph that after the said decision parties were heard on the question of quantum of punishmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »