Allahabad Court October 2008 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.
Smt. Gulab Devi Vs. Iind A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1381
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlady's writ petition. Original landlady petitioner Smt. Gulab Devi filed S.C.C. Suit No. 900 of 1976, against tenant respondent No. 2, Smt. Bachchan Devi. Eviction of tenant respondent No. 2 and recovery of arrears of rent was prayed for in the plaint of the suit. J.S.C.C, Allahabad decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 7.12.1982. Eviction was sought on the ground of default, material alteration and inconsistent user. The Issues of material alteration and inconsistent user were decided against the landlord. Suit was decreed on the ground of default alone. Tenant had deposited the rent under Section 7(c) of the old Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947). The trial court held that the deposit was not valid. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, tenant respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 817 of 1982. II A.D.J., Allahabad allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 10.9.1984, set aside the judgment and decree ...
Matsyajiwi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. through It's Secretary, Udai Raj S/o Ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC269
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the record.3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur, by which the pond No. 440 area 4.177 hect, situated in village Kohda Block Suitha Kala Sahganj, district Jaunpur has been allotted to the respondent No. 4.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur has allotted the pond in question to the respondent No. 4 on the ground that no other application was available on record on 11.07.2008. He submitted that the petitioner has moved an application for the allotment of the pond on 19.07.2008, which is clear from the record as well as the report of the...
Bharat Singh Constable No. 507 S/O Kuwar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1151]
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Ms. Rashmi Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today by the petitioner. Let the same be taken on record.2. The petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 2000 against the order of termination dated 17.05.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut. During the pendency of this writ petition, admittedly the petitioner has died and has been duly substituted by his heirs and legal representatives.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has at the outset raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition in [Mew of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 to say that the petitioner had remedy under Rule 20 of filing an appeal as also under Rule 23 of [filing a revision against such order.4. Learned Coun...
Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and Maharishi Vidya Mandir Through Its Prin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC267
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for Employees State Insurance Act, E.S.I. Branch Office, Allahabad, respondent No. 2.2. Through this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the coverage notice dated 22.08.2008 and notification dated 30.06.2008. The notification has been issued under Section 1(5) of E.S.I. Act, 1948, which is quoted below:1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.(5) The appropriate Government may, in consultation with the Corporation and where the appropriate Government is a State Government, with the approval of the Central Government after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise:Provided that where the provisions of t...
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College and anr. Vs. State o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC466
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties.2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble single Judge dated 9th October, 2007 whereby Writ Petition No. 49367 of 2007, filed by the appellant has been dismissed after recording that the controversy raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Devraha Baba Inter College and Anr. v. Regional Joint Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur and Anr. 2005 (4) ESC 2692. The Hon'ble single Judge has upheld the order impugned which provides that the relevant clause of the amendment in the scheme of administration extending the term of the elected Committee of Management from 3 years to 5 years would be applicable only in respect of the Committee of Management, elections whereof take place subsequent to the approval of the amendments by the Regional Joint Director of Education.3. Challenging the judgment and or...
Subhash and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1307
ORDERV.M. Sahai and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. We have heard Sri Prabhakar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned standing counsel appearing respondents.2. The only argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the writ petition of the appellants has been dismissed by learned single Judge without granting time even once to file rejoinder-affidavit so as to rebut the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.3. We are of the opinion that the writ petitioners have a right to file rejoinder-affidavit and they were entitled for some reasonable time to file rejoinder-affidavit. The purpose of granting time to file rejoinder-affidavit is to meet the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. Accordingly in dismissing the writ petition only on the basis of the counter-affidavit the learned single Judge committed an error as it is ex facie against the principles of fair play. It may have been different where repeatedly time was being granted to file rejoinder-affidavit and the pet...
Brajesh Kumar Son of Ram Gopal Gupta Vs. Smt. Anjali Wife of Brajesh K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1398
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate appeal by husband against judgement and decree dated 25.4.2001 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in petition No. 568 of 1995 (Madras) whereby the petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.2. The parties were married on 5th of April, 1990. Both of them belong to families of good status. The husband Brajesh Kumar at the time of marriage was employed as Pobationer (I.R.E.S.) in Railways.The wife, on the other hand, is M.A. (Zoology). The father of husband at the time of marriage was working as Deputy Collector and father of the wife was Superintendent Engineer in Irrigation Department.3. Petition for divorce was filed at Madras (Chennai) initially which was transferred to Ghaziabad by the order of the Apex Court passed in T.A. (C) No. 457 of 1995: Smt. Anjali v. Brajesh Kumar.The aforesaid petition for divorce was filed by the husband on the pleas as available to a part...
Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1383
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Learned Counsel fcr the petitioner submitted that in reply to the notice under Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply dated 15.2.2007 establishing his title over the land in dispute. The S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad vide order dated 27.8.2007 decided 40 cases by one order. In the said order, the reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all.3. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision without considering the case of the petitioner and without giving any reason following the reasoning given in Revision No. 132/L.R./2007-08 in the case of Trinetra Pratap Singh v. Gaon Sabha, decided on 13.2.2008. He submitted that each case depends upon the facts of its own case and, therefore, each case should be individually deal...
Shyama and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1141]
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri M.R. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent No. 1. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 is available on record. Rejoinder has been filed.2. The petitioners who are 15 in number have filed this writ petition challenging the illegality of the impugned orders (Annexure 1 to 15) dated 16/17.8.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Municipal Board, Ghazipur whereby the petitioners have been retired after attaining the age of 50 years and before 60 years by exercising his power under Fundamental Rule 56(C) of Financial Handbook part II to IV.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the provisions of Fundamental Rules are applicable to Government servants and would not apply to Class IV employees of the Municipal Boards inasmuch as Regulations reg...
Bhaghirathi Vs. A.D.J. Mahoba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC922
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Sitaram filed S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1987 against Bhaghirathi (petitioner), Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Kalu Ram (Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Kalu Ram are pro forma respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition). Property in dispute is a shop. Relief claimed in the plaint was for possession on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent.3. It was alleged in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month and water tax was payable in addition thereto, that rent had not been paid since 01.08.1980, that on 30.09.1986 notice of termination of tenancy and payment of rent was sent by landlord to the tenants demanding the rent from 01.08.1980 to 30.09.1986, that due to inadvertence in the said notice water tax could not be mentioned and demanded. Suit was filed on 06.02.1987. In the plaint it was further stated that rent prior to 04.02.1984 having become barred...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »