Allahabad Court July 2007 Judgments

Smt. Chanda Devi (D) Through L.R. Vs. Vith Additional District and Ses ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3689

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.7.1999 and 4.5.2000 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/1st Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar respectively.3. The petitioner is the owner and landlady of House No. 85/168, Laxmi Purwa P.S. Rai Purwa, Kanpur Nagar. Part of the aforesaid house was given in tenancy of one Prem Singh at the rate of Rs. 15 per month who was living alongwith his 5 sons. The petitioner moved a release application dated 1.9.1997 under Section 16(1) (B) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 24 of 1997. The Rent Control Inspector made a spot inspection and submitted his report dated 2.9.1997 in respect of the vacancy said to have been caused due to the shifting of Sri Prem Singh in House No. 620-D, Vishwa...

Roop Narayan and ors. Vs. Km. Damyanti Manucha and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1628

Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the tenants. S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1981. Km. Damyanti v. Roop Narain and Ors. was instituted on 6.3.1981 for ejectment and arrears of rent.After a written statement was filed, suit was dismissed in default on 22.4.1988. A restoration application was moved on 12.8.1988, which was allowed and suit was restored on 28.9.1996. The tenants preferred a Civil Revision No. 178 of 1996 under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the order allowing restoration application of the plaintiff/ respondents. The said revision was dismissed on 15.12.1999. Subsequently, proceedings could not continue in the intervening period between 17.2.2000 to 24.4.2000 on account of strike of the lawyers.3. No application was moved by the plaintiffs bringing to the notice of the Court that defendant No. 10 Sona Devi is dead and her legal representatives are already on record. But ...

Pratap NaraIn Kureel Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1634

S.N. Srivastava, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4.9.1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and also to the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by Board of Revenue and the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by Addl. Commissioner, (Administration) Lucknow Division, Lucknow.2. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel who being called upon has agreed to assist the Court on behalf of Lucknow Nagar Nigam and Sri V.N. Sirswar, learned standing counsel, at prolix length.3. (Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act of 1997 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997) Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was omitted/amended and proceedings pending before the Commissioner ought to have been decided under Section 219 of the Amended Act. He further urged that the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue under Section 218 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 only and the proceedings has been protrac...

Mohammad Saleem (After His Death Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The original applicant Mohd. Saleem filed this O.A for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2003 passed by Respondent No. 3 and impugned order/direction dated 16.10.2003 given by Chief post Master, KPHO regarding to arrange payment of DCRG after adjusting the cooperative society dues amounting worth Rs. 51,896/- from the sanctioned amount of DCRG Rs. 52,896/- payable to the applicant; ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and impugned order/direction dated 16.10.2003 given by Chief Post Master, KPHO, Kanpur/Respondent No. 4 to APM, A/cs, KPHO regarding to arrange payment of DCRG after adjusting the Cooperative Society dues amounting worth Rs. 51,896/- from the sanctioned amount of DCRG Rs. 52,896/- payable to the applicant; iii. To i...

Vijai Shankar Singh S/O Hakim Singh Vs. Depty Inspector General of Pol ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1177]

Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner joined the U.P. Police Service as a Constable in 1958. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1978. A criminal case was lodged against the petitioner in which he was convicted by judgment and order dated 9.9.1993 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 304 I.P.C. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1574 of 1993 in which the petitioner was granted bail and by order dated 14.9.1993 the execution of the sentence was suspended by following order:The execution of sentence passed by Sri S.N. Pandey Special Judge Gorakhpur in Special Session Trial No. 329 of 1990 on 9.9.1993 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.The petitioner continued in service and was also paid his salary till he superannuated on 30.11.1997. Since after retirement the petitioner was not being paid his regular pension and other retiral dues, he filed several representations and when the respondents still did not pay such dues to the petitioner, he...

Swadeshi Cotton Mills (Under the Management of National Textile Corpor ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR878]

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Smt. Kirtika Singh for the petitioner and perused the record.2. The application has been filed for recall of the order dated 25.11. 2003 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution. The ground taken in the application is that she failed to mark the case in the list of 25.11.2003, as such no counsel could appear from the Side of the petitioner when the case-was taken up. The nature of work of an advocate is professional, as such there is no question of exoneration of such mistakes on their part, as such no sufficient cause has been shown for restoration of the writ petition.3. I have gone through the record at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner who states that the matter may be decided on merits.4. From the record I find that this petition has been filed for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated 25.06.1984 enforced by publication on the notice board on 23.8.1084. The award arose of a reference made h the State Government vide...

Reeta Yadav Wife of Dharm Dev Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3693

Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondents.2. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for further affidavits.3. Petitioner Reeta Yadav was elected as the Block Pramukh Kshetra Panchayat Sadad District Ghazipur in the elections held in the month of February, 2006. Smt. Geeta Yadav the other contestant filed election petition before the District Judge, Ghazipur. The petition has been numbered as Case No. 01 of 2007. In paragraph 4 to 6 of the election petition it has been stated that 10 first preference votes which were cast in favour of the election petitioner were wrongly declared invalid. It is admitted on record that the election petitioner has lost by a margin of 7 votes only. If these 10 votes of first preference are counted in her favour the result would be materially effected and the election petitioner would be ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(1)AWC52

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment dated 5.10.2004 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned judgment the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, alongwith revision and stay application.3. The dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to the ground floor portion 6f Bungalow No. 126, the Mall, Cantt., Kanpur which is under the tenancy of the petitioner since 1911. The rent was paid to Mr. S.de Nororihar km. C.de Noronha and Mr. S.de Noronha. The Post Master Noronha Exchange Post Office by the letter dated 27.7.1981 was informed that the landlords had transferred the aforesaid Bungalow No. 126 to Gopi Kishan Omar Vaish Dharmada Trust, Birhana Road, Kanpur and advised the petitioner to pay rent to Sri Gopi Kishan Gupta w.e.f. 1.8.1981 to whom the rent is...

Rajeev Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1630

A.N. Varma, J.1. One Nasrat All Khan, was elected as a Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. He died on 1.5.2007. Consequent upon his death, the vacancy to the office of Pradhan occurred. The District Magistrate, vide order dated 25.5.2007 exercising the powers conferred under Section 12J(2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as an Act) nominated the petitioner as Pradhan. It appears that thereafter certain complaints were made by as many as 9 members of Gram Panchayat, with regard to functioning of the petitioner as a nominated Pradhan, whereupon the opposite party No. 3, vide his order dated 12.7.2007 cancelled the order dated 25.5.2007 and nominated Shri Avtar Singh, i.e., opposite party No. 5, as a Pradhan. It is the order dated 12.7.2007 that is being assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition.2. I have heard Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Rakesh Srivastaya, learned standing counsel.3. Shr...

Satyadev Prasad Yadav S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant was an employee of Railways working under the respondent No. 2 as Sub Overseer Horticulture. He retired from service on 31.12.1996 as Head Horticulture Inspector. The pension and other retrial dues were sanctioned to him and he has stated that he received the same without any anomaly and he was satisfied.2. It has further been stated by the applicant that on the basis of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission, the pay and allowances was revised from 1.1.1996. The order was, however, issued after the applicant had already retired from service in the year 1998 and as a result of revision, the retiral benefits of the applicant had been calculated afresh. The respondents found that the dues as arrears would be 46125/-, but at the time of payment, the respondents deducted Rs. 14544/- from the dues without assigning any reason. Later, it came to the notice of the applicant that this deduction was made by the respondents for the alleged reason that the applicant had not retur...