Allahabad Court July 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.
Milan Kumar Singh S/O Rajendra Singh and Rajendra Singh S/O Gulab Sing ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4742
R.N. Misra, J.1. This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicants, who have been called by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 21.5.2007 in Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2007 under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women From domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause within specified time, why action should a not be taken against them on the complaint of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Swapnil Singh. The applicants have prayed for quashing and stay of proceedings of said complaint.2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.3. It appears from the record that the opposite party No. 2 has been married with applicant No. 1. The applicant No. 2 is the father-in-law of opposite party No. 2. Some matrimonial disputes are going on between, the parties, and beside this complaint, some other criminal proceedings are also going on. learned Counsel for the applicants has placed before me ...
Bhajan Lal and anr. Vs. Bal Govind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All199; 2007(4)AWC3832
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash. the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri A.N. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants.2. List has been revised. No one appears for the defendants/opposite parties.3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance praying that the defendants be directed to execute a sale deed either in favour of plaintiff No. 2 or in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 or in favour of both of them whoever is found by the Court to have the right as per the alleged agreement dated 4-11-1973 and/or agreement dated 17-10-1978 with regard to the property No. 322 measuring 4 biswas in Nabasta (Baba Nagar), Hamirpur Road, Kanpur.4. The facts leading to the filing of the suit is that the defendant No. 1 Sri Bal Govind agreed to sell 4 biswas land in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and also received the entire amount. The fact that he had sold the land and had received the consideration was recorded on a piece of paper. Based on this agreement, da...
Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Additional Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3821
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the southern portion of the premises No. 504, Mumfordganj, Allahabad which he got in family settlement. On the basis of the family settlement the petitioner got his name mutated in the records of the Nagar Mahapalika and a new No. 504A/1 was allotted to the portion allotted to him. The shop in dispute is situated in the said premises No. 504A/1, Mumfordganj, Allahabad. The petitioner states that though he is a post-graduate from Allahabad University he could not get any job despite his best efforts. In the meantime he was married. To earn his livelihood he decided to ply a trecker and purchased the same in the year 1981. However, to his bad luck he fell seriously ill in the year 1987 and suffered heavy loss in that business compelling him to sell his trecker to pay the instalments of the loan. It is further stated by the petitioner that he remained ill for abo...
Mahesh Prasad Vs. Ram Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3973
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This is a writ petition filed by the tenant for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Upper Zila Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad/respondent No. 3 by which the application No. 19Ga of the petitioner alongwith the affidavit for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount has been rejected.3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords filed a suit No. 45 of 1995, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and pendente lite against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying the plaint allegations. The Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, decreed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages Rs. 4,805 by its judgment and decree dated 13.2.2004.4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the petitioner filed Revision No. 156 of 2004, before respondent No. 3, alongwith an application for interim orders.5. ...
Shri Prakash Chaurasia Vs. Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Court No. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1626
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that previously a Writ Petition No. 133 (R/C) of 2,006 was preferred in this Court challenging two orders dated 15.9.2006 on two different applications, one under Order VIII, Rule 9, C.P.C. and the other under Order XI, Rule 1, C.P.C. This Court refused to entertain two orders in a single petition and the writ petition against the impugned order passed on the application under Order XI, Rule 1, C.P.C. was dismissed. However, liberty was given to file separate writ petition in respect of the second order, which is sought to be quashed in the instant writ petition.A specific assertion has been made in the opening paragraphs of the instant writ petition, therefore, without any objection, the writ petition is being heard on merits.3. The petitioner is a tenant. S.C.C. No. 1 of 2003 was instituted against the petitioner for arrears of r...
Smt. Manju Devi Vs. Additional District Judge Viiith and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3403
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. P.A. Case No. 19 of 1988 was filed by the landlord-petitioner before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation in dispute which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.3.2002.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 59 of 2002 which is said to be still pending.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the provision of Rule 7(7) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which provides as under:As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two months, and an appeal under Section 22 shall be decided within six months from the date of its presentation.5. Thus, outer limit provided by the aforesaid rules framed under the Act for deciding the appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act is six months.6. This Court has given severa...
Harveer Singh S/O Sri Ram Swaroop and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR858]
Vineet Saran, J.1. The short question involved in this case is as to whether the candidates, who were selected and appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, would be entitled for payment of salary for the period during which they had undergone training for such appointment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioners appeared in the selection process held in the year 1987-1988 for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. Initially the petitioners were placed in the waiting list and thereafter they were sent for training only in the year 1994. During the period of training, they were paid stipend of Rs. 1,000/- per month. After successfully completing their training, they were given appointment as Sub Inspectors under Regulation 406 of U.P. Police Regulations and only thereafter they were paid their regular salary. The petitioners had filed representations for payment of salary for the period of training. Since their representations were not decide...
Smt. Madhuri Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4085
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner saying that her husband has gifted and/or transferred the alleged property in favour of an institution to be set up in the locality. A loan was given by the State for the purpose of development in part but before grant of further loan, an inquiry was made with regard to khatauni of the appropriate land and when it was found by the State that the khatauni was false and there is no whisper In respect of the land of the school, it issued a recovery certificate to recover the loan amount which has been given by them to the petitioner for construction for the benefit of the school.2. Sri Vishnu Pratap and Sri S. K. Mehrotra learned standing counsel appeared for the State and contended before this Court that the document by which the transfer was given effect to, was not a registered document. Therefore, the land cannot be mutated by incorporating the name of the appropriate person.3. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Co...
National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC199
Amitava Lala, J.1. The appellant contended before this Court Mat the vehicle in question has been used for the purpose of carrying 'Barat' on the fateful day when accident took place and 11 years- Anurag sustained injuries and expired. In the entire evidence a statement has been made by the father of the deceased that the jeep by which they were being carried was on hire. At the time of consideration of evidence, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that no document has been produced by which it can be proved that the jeep was carrying the passengers of 'Barat' on hire. In any, event the Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to be paid by the owner but by making a stop-gap arrangement directed the Insurance Company to pay the said sum and recover it from the owner.2. Mr. Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appellant -Insurance Company contended before this Court particularly in view of Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2006 (National Ins...
Seema Singh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3970
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. An application under Section 16(1) (b) and Section 12(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against the petitioner and others on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the landlord of the Building No. 1088, Civil Lines, Lalitpur, was let out to Ram Nath and Company on 10.2.1968. Late Ram Kumar Singh was Manager in the Ram Nath Company aforesaid. And was living in it as in that capacity. The company was dissolved and the disputed premises was vacated.2. Ram Kumar Singh, the erstwhile Manager of the company, moved an application for allotment of the premises in his favour which was registered as Case No. 108 of 1979. The application of the manager was rejected.3. Thereafter, the landlord filed a release application on the ground that the house in dispute was bona fide required to them,. The objections against the release application was filed by the petitioner claiming herself the tenancy devolved upon her as she is the wife of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »