Allahabad Court November 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.
Alka Jaiswal Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC571
Arun Tandon and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. These petitions have been filed for quashing the condition imposed in the Master Plan-2021 which provides that the building plans in residential areas of Civil Lines, George Town and Tagore Town shall not be approved where the area of the plots is less than 200 sq. meters.2. The factual position in all these cases is that the petitioners who had purchased plots in residential areas in Civil Lines, Allahabad had submitted building plans for sanction before the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') but they have been rejected on the sole ground that the area of the plots in all the cases is less than 200 sq. meters. Reliance has been placed upon the provisions contained in Clause 4A (Residential) of the Zoning Regulations contained in the Allahabad Master Plan-2021.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as the learned Counse...
Smt. Geeta Bala Goyal and anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC573
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri Murlidhar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri AJay Kumar Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nirvikar Gupta, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is decided finally without calling for a counter-affidavit.2. It transpires that a suit was decreed by a judgment dated 25.3.1993 and the same was put in execution. When the petitioners came to know about the execution of the decree, they filed an objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. which is pending consideration. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioners were advised to file an appeal and, accordingly on 6.4.2005, an appeal was filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The decree holders filed their abjections, and subsequently, the appellate court by an order dated 7.8.2008, rejected the application ...
Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. Committee of Management, Ashok Inter College T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1814
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. This special appeal has been field by the appellant (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) against the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by learned single Judge in the Writ Petition No. 54500 of 2008, Committee of Management, Ashok Inter College, Jaunpur v. Director of Education Allahabad and Ors.2. By the order dated 23.10.2008 learned single Judge has stayed the operation of the orders dated 28.8.2008 and 28.9.2008. Vide order dated 28.8.2008 the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur has directed the petitioner to submit he bill of the arrears of salary and the papers relating to the post retiral benefit of appellant (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition). However, vide order dated 28.9.2008 of District Inspector of Schools has passed an order of single operation while exercising his power under Section 5 of the U.P. High School Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 71...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1677
Saroj Bala, J.1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1981 whereby convicting the accused appellant No. 1 Om Prakash under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 307/34 I.P.C. and appellants No. 2 and 3 Jai Prakash and Ram Kumar under Sections 302, 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellant No. 4 Ganga Ram stood abated vide order dated 9-10-2007.2. The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial was that the first informant Kela Ram (P.W.3) was a peon in Janta Junior High School, Ganjalpur and Suresh Chand (P.W. 1) was the Manager of said school. There was a dispute over the office of Manager between Suresh Chand (P.W.1) and accused appella...
Aneesa Khatoon W/O Kalu Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC529
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner (J), Moradabad dated 25.08.2008 passed in revision No. 76/2007-08, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Aneesa Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors., by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition is that the dispute relates to the land of khasra No. 246 (0.506 hect.) of khata No. 206 situated in village Mohiuddinpur Pargana Kiratpur Tehsil Nazibabad, district Bijnor. It is claimed that the said land was allotted to the father of the petitioner, Nazir Ahmad and uncle Chhidda, both sons of Chhajju @ Majhar in the year 1953 (1360 Fasli) for agriculture purpose as Asami patta. They have been cultivating the same on payment of Rs. 6/- to the Revenue Officer. They have been recorded in Clause 3 category in khatauni. Chhidda died issuless. It is the case of the petitioner that on the ...
Surendra Singh S/O Sri Shanker Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Sec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2009All106; 2009(1)ALD522
V.M. Sahai and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.8.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 41740 of 2008 Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and Ors. By the order dated 18.8.2008 the learned Single Judge has required the State respondents to file counter affidavit and has issued notice to the respondent No. 6 and 7 and further till the next date of listing it has been provided that no action shall be taken against the petitioner under the Right to Information Act 2005.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent in this Special Appeal has been duly served with notice of this appeal on 25.9.2008.Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order on the ground that the controversy as to whether the Committee of Management of an Educational Institution or its members can be required to give information on an application made under the Right to Information Act 2005 has been considered by a Division Bench of...
Dr. Subhash Chandra JaIn Son of Moti Lal JaIn Vs. Special Judge (E.C. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC149
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. A suit for divorce was filed by the petitioner which he allowed it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. But, during the pendency of the suit, an order of maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 per month was granted in favour of the opposite party No. 2. Upon the dismissal of the suit, an application for the execution of the order of maintenance was filed by the opposite party praying that the interim maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 per month be given to the applicant for the period 1986 to 1996. The petitioner appeared and filed his objections and, one of the grounds was, that the petitioner had paid maintenance outside the Court to the opposite party which was required to be adjusted. In paragraph 4 of the objection, the petitioner contended that for the period 28th August, 1986 to March, 1992, payments were made on various dates and receipts was given by the opposite party. In paragraph No. 5 it has been alleged that for the period 1992 to 1996, payment in cash was made to the op...
Sarvan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC963
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the appellant to press this special appeal.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2008 passed by Hon'ble single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49242 of 2008, Sarvan Kumar v. State of U.P. The said writ petition was filed with the following prayers:1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of line man in the electricity department.2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner month to month regularly as regular employee with all consequential benefits.3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to decide the respondents/application of the petitioner dated 15.7.2008 (contained in Annexure -4 to the writ petition).3...
Chandra Bali Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC259
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word 'building' used in Section 2 (1) (g) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:(a) to (f) ... (not relevant).(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word 'building' used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word 'building' means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.4. Landlord-respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400 per month. It was also stated that ten...
israr Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1656
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 54217 of 2008, Israr Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Ors. by which the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.9.1985 as Assistant Teacher in the Junior Basic School. In the year 1996, he was appointed as Sankul Prabhari while he was working as Assistant Teacher. In the year 2005, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster. After promotion on the post of Headmaster, he was again appointed as Sankul Prabhari, Karwa Buzurg on 31.8.2005 by the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah. The petitioner's appointment on the post of Sankul Prabhari was cancelled by the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah vide order dated 27.9.2008 on the ground of certain lapses on the part of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »