Allahabad Court October 2008 Judgments
Arun Kumar Son of Shri Harsh Mani Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC462
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of the Collector dated 10.12.2007 passed in revision No. 57/172, under Section 333/122-B (4-A) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), by which he has remanded back the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur for passing fresh order after making the spot examination and examining the entire records in accordance to the law.2. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remand of the case is wholly unjustified. He submitted that in pursuance of the notice in Form 49-A, the petitioner has filed detailed reply and on the consideration of the reply, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur has vacated the notice. He further submitted that filing of the revision by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram S/O Shri Ram Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1362
R.M. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been filed by the complainant against Judgment and order dated 9th February 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad by which he has set aside the order dated 24th January 2007 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 2534 of 2005 (Ganga Ram v. Gyan Narain & others) under Sections 336, 504 and 506(2) IPC, Police Station Daraganj, Allahabad. The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision may be summarised as under:2. The complainant Sri Ganga Ram S/o Shri Ram Lal R/o 986-A 1361 Laska Kuti, Daraganj, Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad moved an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Allahabad (in short 'the Magistrate') under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') against the accused S/Sri Gyan Narain Shivpur, Kandha, Govind, Vijai Kumar and Shatrughan for direction to the Station Office...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar S/O Bachai Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Sec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1308
Sunil Ambwani and Raj Mani Chauhan, JJ.1. Heard Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.C. Misra, Additional Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed on 3.1.1998 as a regular member of Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) as Assistant Commandant. During the training period, he was posted to various Battalions of the CRPF. While he was posted with 28th Battalion CRPF deployed al Hallo Majra, Chandigarh in the year 2001, he applied for and was granted 29 days earned leave w.e.f. 8.9.2001 to 6.10.2001 with permission to avail 07.10.2001 being Sunday by the Commandant of the Battalion and was due to rejoin duties on 8.10.2001. It is alleged that the petitioner could not rejoin on 8.10.2001, as his wife was pregnant and was seriously ill. Fie sent an application on 4.10.2001 requesting for 15 days extension of the leave on the ground of serious illness of his wife. His request however was not accepted by the Commandant and t...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram Gupta and anr. Vs. Jai Ram Verma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1806
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These three writ petitions have been filed by the same landlords whose release applications under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, filed on the ground of bona fide need against tenants who are respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions have been rejected. The properties in dispute are three shops adjoining to each other. One shop each is in possession of the respondent No. 1 in each of these writ petitions. The need set up in the release application was that the landlords wanted to settle their son in business who intended to open a departmental store after demolition of the three shops and constructing a new big shop for being used as departmental store. Release application against tenant Ghanshyam Das Sunar since deceased and survived by Jairam Verma was registered as Rent Case No. 27 of 1991, release application against Bhoop Chandra Sharma was registered as Rent Case No...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC918
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition was allowed on 28.9.2004 and the award of the labour court directing reinstatement of workman-respondent No. 2 Pankaj Kumar Srivastasva with back wages was set aside. Review petition was also dismissed. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2008. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on 24.4.2008 and writ petition was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration.2. Through the award challenged in the writ petition four adjudication cases were decided. The number of adjudication case relating to respondent No. 2 in this writ petition was Adjudication Case No. 86 of 1991. The numbers of other Adjudication Cases Nos. 71 of 1991, 210 of 1991 and 164 of 1992. In respect of the same award relating to Adjudication Case No. 71 of 1991. Writ Petition No. 12428 of 1998 was filed which was dismissed by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court on 23.3.2004.The Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Ram and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Coll ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC475
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut In Revision No. 59, Om Prakash v. Roop Ram and Ors. and order of the Deputy Director of Consolldation dated 11.9.2008 passed in Revision No. 8, Om Prakash v. Room Ram and Ors.2. The brief facts of the case are ; that the petitioners claimed that a sale deed dated 9.7.1984 was executed by Sri Om Prakash in respect of Khata No. 288 in favour of the father of petitioners No. 1 to 5. In the consolidation proceeding, the father of the petitioners No. 1 to 5 filed an application under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for the mutation of their names over the land of Khasra No. 288, village Aurang Nagar, Tehsil Sardhana, Meerut which was rejected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Meerut vide order dated 24.2.1986. ...
Tag this Judgment!Saf Yeast Company Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)24VST152(All)
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:3. The petitioner which is a private limited company has alleged that its unit at UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Sandila District, Hardoi, is manufacturing yeast from molasses, which is raw material for the manufacture of yeast. The molasses is purchased from various sugar factories situated in the State of U.P. The petitioner has further alleged that the State of U.P. enacted the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Adhiniyam'). Sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Adhiniyam provides that the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay to the State Government, in the manner prescribed, administrativ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Kesari and anr. Vs. Xiith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC263
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against order of remand passed by lower revisional court respondent No. 1 in the revision, which was filed by the landlord respondent No. 3, against judgment and decree passed by trial court/J.S.C.C, Allahabad dismissing the suit of plaintiff respondent No. 3 landlord.3. This writ petition involves pure questions of law and learned Counsel for both the parities at the time of hearing addressed the Court on all the points involved. Learned Counsel for the landlord respondent No. 3 challenged those findings of the revisional court also, which were recorded against it. Supreme Court in NalakatK Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman : [2002]SUPP1SCR1 , under similar circumstances has held on the principles of Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. that in revision filed by the tenant, landlord can raise other points, which were decided by the trial court against him.4. The suit giving rise to the instant w...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1391
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Chaube, the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner is the elected Pradhan and by the impugned order dated 23.8.2008 the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner was ceased under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It transpires that on Tehsil Diwas, a complaint was made by some of the villagers against the petitioner on 6.5.2008 and, on that complaint, the District Magistrate passed an order directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer to make an enquiry. This order is found on the record of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, which the Court has perused. Based on this direction, it transpires that the Block Development Officer as well as the District Panchayat Raj Officer submitted their separate reports and based on these reports, a show cause notice dated 23.6.2008 was issued which is alleged to have been paste...
Tag this Judgment!Kanahaiya Lal Agarwal Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2538
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 3, Hakeem Ziaul Rahman on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Landlord petitioner impleaded his real brother Jewan Lal Agarwal, respondent No. 4 as proforma opposite party in the release application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1990. Prescribed Authority/Munsif (West), Ballia allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 6.5.1994. Against the said judgment and order, tenant respondent No. 3 filed R.C. Appeal No. 5 of 1994. which was allowed by District Judge, Ballia on 31.7.1995 and judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority was set aside. This writ petition is direc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »