Allahabad Court December 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.
Committee of Management, Waqf No. 3069 and anr. Vs. Shah Fasihul HusaI ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1263
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard, Sri M. A. Qadeer, senior counsel assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Haider Hussain, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for respondent No. 13. Perused the record.2. In view of the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, notice need not be issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 12 at this stage.3. Waqf No. 3069, Dargah Jhanda Shareef Bade Peer Sahab is registered with the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P., Lucknow after survey conducted under the provisions of Waqf Act No. 16 of 1960. Another Waqf No. 43, Farrukhabad was also registered separately.4. The Controller of the Waqf Board without notice or opportunity to the Committee of Management of Waqf No. 3069 by his ex parte order dated 9.6.1999 merged both the Waqfs appointing Shah Fasihul Hussain Mujeebi, respondent No. 1 who was mutwalli of Waqf Board No. 43 as mutawalli of Waqf Board No. 3069 also. On coming to know a...
Godarshan Lal Chawla Sri Vs. Saharanpur Development Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1810
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 15.11.2008 passed in Original Suit No. 521 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saharanpur whereby while deciding issue No. 1 the Court has held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and has further recorded that in case the plaintiff revisionist wants to raise the issue before the appropriate authority the plaint can be returned to him.3. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdulla Bin All and Ors. v. Calappa and Ors. : AIR1985SC577 , to state that the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the allegations made in the plaint and not on the written statement. He has further referred to a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Umesh Chandra Saxena v. First Additional Civil Judge (Sen...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1207
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.1. These two appeals directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in brief the Tribunal) give rise to an interesting questions of law, whether the statutory order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief the Act) can be deemed to have been passed; whether the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting an application under Section 170 can be challenged in an appeal under Section 173(1); whether the order passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurance company to cross-examine the claimant's witness in absence of the owner satisfies the requirements of law as provided in Section 170 of the Act2. The brief facts are that on 24.1.2005 Shiv Shankar Mishra along-with Dilip Kumar Pandey was going to his residence, driving motor cycle No. UP-65/V-6821. The bus No. UP-42/T-2889 collided with motor cycle. Due to injuries received in the accident Shiv Shanker Mishra died on the spot. The pillion rider Dilip Kumar Pandey was al...
General Manager, Aligarh Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (Parag Dairy ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ499All
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri G.D. Misra for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan appears for respondent-workmen Nos. 4 to 59.The petitioner is a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchasing, pausturising, packing and selling milk and milk products in the trade name of 'Parag' in District Hathras. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to set aside an order dated October 31, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Minimum of Wages Act, 1948/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, by which he has awarded Rs. 1,86,696/- as the difference between minimum wages and the wages paid to the 56 workmen engaged by the petitioner as labour, paiker, mali, lab assistant, electrician, refrigration plant operator, sweeper, clerk and boiler attendant etc. and Rs. 56,000/- as penalty at the Rs. 1000/- per workman.2. The 56 workmen made a complaint to the Prescribed Authority that they were engaged through Shri Jai Mangal and Shri Roshan Singh, contractors to work in the dairy run b...
Pawan Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC391; [2008(119)FLR1180]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi learned senior advocates assisted by their instructing counsels ; Sri P. Section Baghel ; Sri R. B. Singhal and Sri Vijai Gautam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these identical writ petitions challenging cancellation of appointments as constables in the Civil Police, Provincial Armed Constabulary and in the Wireless Wing of the Police.2. Heard Sri V.B. Upadhayay, learned senior advocate appearing as a special counsel for the State of U. P. assisted by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned chief standing counsel alongwith other standing counsels.3. Both the parties agree that the issues involved in these cases are identical in nature and can be heard together and disposed of accordingly. For the sake of convenience, with the consent of parties the present writ petition is being treated as the leading petition.4. These bunch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge m...
Ramesh Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1266
Arun Tandon and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the notification dated 26th December, 1979 issued under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parishad Adhiniyam') as well as the declaration dated 5th November, 1982 made under Section 32(1) of the Parishad Adhiniyam on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Acquisition Act') was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an area measuring 0.1170 hectares in plot No. 89 and 0.0550 hectares in Plot No. 97 situated at Mauja Harpur, Mahal Khurd, Pargana Ballia, district Ballia. These two plots were included in the notification issued under Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam on 26th December, 1979 which was subsequently published in the official Gazette on 8th March, 19...
Suket SarIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2317
Arun Tandon and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This petition seeks the declaration that the acquisition of the plots in dispute has lapsed because of the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner has also sought the - quashing of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.2. The records of the writ petition indicate that the notification dated 17th April, 2002 under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of land measuring 7.93 Acres situated in certain plots in Village Salarpur Khadar, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar for planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.O.I.D.A.'). It was also mentioned in the notification that since the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were applicable to the said land inasmuch as the said land was ...
Smt. Krishna Kumari and anr. Vs. Brijesh Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC419
ORDERPankaj Mithal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This first appeal from order was decided on merits on 13.9.2007. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 had not appeared even in the revised list though the name of Sri A.K. Mishra was shown. Now another counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has moved this application for the recall of the judgment and order dated 13.9.2007 on the ground that his name was not printed.3. It is not disputed that for the same respondent Shri A. K. Mishra was also appearing and his name was duly printed in the cause list. His vakalatnama was not withdrawn and therefore it cannot be said he ceased to have instructions. No leave was granted to the new counsel to appear replacing the earlier counsel. The Division Bench of this Court in Balram Tiwari and Ors. v. Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Anr. : 2000(2)AWC1471 , had deprecated the practice of engaging a new counsel without terminating the instructions of the p...
Amit Khanna Vs. Smt. Suchi Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC929
V.M. Sahai and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the husband against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.8.2008 passed in a transfer application under Section 24, C.P.C. transferring Divorce Petition No. 1020 of 2006, Amit Khanna v. Smt. Suchi Khanna, from Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the Family Court at Lakhimpur Khirt.2. At the very outset the Court confronted the learned Counsel for the appellant about the maintainability of this special appeal in view of the ratio of Jagdish Kumar v. District Judge, Budaun 1998 (1) ARC 305 : 1998 (2) AWC 293 (NOC). In the said case the single Judge has laid down that an order passed under Section 24, C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable. However, it can be subject to test under supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court provided it has been passed by the District Court and against an order passed by the High Court remedy under Section 25 of C.P.C. is availa...
Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Sri Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2009All85; 2009(1)AWC900
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri G.L. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Sankatha Rai, senior counsel appears for the respondent.2. This defendant's second appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 420 of 1971 filed by Satya Narain-plaintiff for cancellation of gift deed dated 14.10.1970 executed by Smt. Laxmi Devi defendant No. 1 in the suit, in favour of Janak Dulari-defendant No. 2, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the property in dispute to any person other than the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 6. The suit was decreed by Munsif, Fatehpur on 20.7.1977. The Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1977 was dismissed by IVth Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur on 8.12.1977.3. The Second Appeal No. 3383 of 1978 came up for hearing on 2.3.2006 and was allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below, cancelling the sale deed. On that day no one appears for the respondents.4. Shri Sri Prakash, the respondent filed a special leave to appeal in the S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »