Allahabad Court May 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.
Sridhar Singh and ors. Vs. Narendra Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3246
S.U. Khan, J.1. These five appeals by different parties have been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.2.1989, passed by VIIIth A.D.J., Azamgarh in two suits, i.e.. Original Suit No. 37 of 1981, Sant Bux Singh and Ors. v. Shridhar Singh and Ors. and Original Suit No. 36 of 1982, Sridhar Singh and Ors. v. Sri Narendra Singh and Ors. Both the suits were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment.2. The main dispute relates to major part of plot No. 952/2, total area 402 links (karis). This plot belonged to two brothers Kabir Khan and Yar Khan. Aijaz and Niaz are sons of Kabir Khan and Ishtiyak is son of Yar Khan. Kabir Khan and Yar Khan (or their sons) divided the property in equal share in such manner that western portion of 201 links fell in the share of Yar Khan/his son Ishtiyak and eastern half portion of 201 hnks in the share of Kabir Khan/his sons Aijaz and Niaz. The partition was recognised in O.S. No. 21 of 1975 Aijaz and Nlaz sold 70 links of their portion of the af...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC702
Rajes Kumar and B. K. Narayana, JJ.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 19.11.2007, passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 12)/M.A.C.T., Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 132 of 2005, Smt. Renu Mishra and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.2. Appellant is the Insurance company. Admittedly, the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has not been granted. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that an application under Section 170 of the Act was moved before the Tribunal but no order has been passed. He further submitted that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal for the various reasons.3. We are afraid to accept the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant. Unless the permission under Section 170 of the Act is granted to contest the case, which was available to the owner of the vehicle, the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 17...
Jaiprakash Associates Construction Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN375(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. These two appeals under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') both relating to the assessment year 1989-90 are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 22-1-2002 in ITA No. 2426/A11./1992.2. In appeal No. 26 of 2002, the following questions have been raised:I. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal committed substantial error of law in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 23,63,140 as claimed by the assessee-appellant, by ignoring the material and vital evidence on record relating to the case of the assessee and by proceeding on incorrect and incomplete legal and factual promise in regard to its having received lesser payment for untrained and inexperienced staff, numbering 69, as trainees under a new and modified contract after the contractor had refused to accept them under the original contract ?II. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal committed substantial error of law in overlooking and not appreciating and co...
Udai Nath S/O Sri Hari Das Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secreta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2008All180
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in these two petitions (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49158 of 2007 being leading petition) are whether the amendment made in Rule 10 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in brief the Rules) in 2004 authorising the Collector to grant mining lease for some of the minerals, namely, sand, morrum, bajri, boulders or any of these in mixed state, without any limit of area, is beyond the rule making powers of the State and is ultra vires; whether such grant of power without any guideline is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; whether lifting of restrictions for grant of mining leases for a maximum area of 30 acres is likely to create monopoly which is against the constitution and public policy; whether preferential right of applicants applying on the same day on financial resources in Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules is bad being vague; whether the requirement of filing, 'No Objection Certificate' from the...
Smt. Bindu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2212
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. The short point involved in this writ petition is as to whether stamp duty can be charged on any such property which has been unauthorizedly and/or illegally occupied by the petitioner, which is beyond the area for which the sale deed had been executed.2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner had, vide sale deed dated 17.10.2002, purchased a plot of land measuring 36 meters, for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs. On the said transaction, the petitioner had paid the requisite stamp duty as per the existing circle rate fixed by the Collector, according to which the valuation of the property came to Rs 1.77 lacs. Up till this point there was no dispute with regard to payment of stamp duty. Subsequently in the year 2005, a complaint was lodged to the effect that the petitioner had occupied the adjoining area and made certain constructions beyond the portion of land which had been purchased by him. An enquiry was got conducted and a report had been submitted that...
Magnum Builders and Developers and Chawala Construction (J.V.) Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR235(All)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant upon being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the District Judge in-charge, Jhansi dated 13th February, 2008 rejecting the application for ad interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Act') passed in Misc. Petition No. 01 of 2008 (Magnum Builders & Developers and Chawala Constructions v. Ircon International Limited and Anr.). However, Ircon International Ltd. and another, the respondents herein, have filed cross-objection. Therefore, both have been heard analogously.2. The order impugned passed by the Court below is distinctly divided into three parts i.e. (a) jurisdiction; (b) maintainability; and (c) merit. Since the question of jurisdiction is involved, we have called upon the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to make their respective submissions on that score, but Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Senior Counsel...
Mool Chand Vs. Smt. Neelam Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3243
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri S. Alim Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri D.C. Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2008, passed by the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Bijnor, in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2007, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 20.9.2007, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor, in Original Suit No. 238 of 2001.3. The dispute is in respect of a house situated in Mohalla Kaisthan, Kasba and Tehsil Chandpur, district Bijnor. The entire property belonged to one Rajwati w/o Bhukkhan Saran, who sold it on 5.7.1940 to Chandu Lal, Raghuvir Saran, Ram Saran and Mangu Lal all sons of Fanda Mal. The plaintiff was the owner of 1/4 share of the aforesaid property, and the same was auctioned in execution proceedings of a money decree. The property was purchased by one Nisar Ahmed son of Tafazzul Hussain in the auction sale. The auction purchaser sold the property...
Kanpur Jal Sansthan Through Its General Manager and General Manager, K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3286(All); [2008(118)FLR560]; 2009(2)SLJ278(NULL)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants from the judgement and order dated 6th September, 2007, passed by the concerned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,89,280/- as compensation payable to the claimant/s and in case of default payment of interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of accident i.e. 02nd October, 2002, till the date of payment.2. By challenging such judgement and order in this appeal, Mr. Anil Sharma, leaned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgement and order passed by the learned Commissioner is contrary to law and equity. According to him, the deceased died in an accident on 02nd October. 2002. The application to have compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was made on 02nd May, 2006 i.e. after about four years from the date of accident. According to law, such type of application have to be made within a period of two years from the date o...
Sher Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4540
Amar Saran, J.1. This criminal capital appeal, which is connected with reference No. 5 of 2007, under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad, has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Firozabad whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment the appellant was to undergo one year simple imprisonment; ten years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 376 IPC and in case of default the appellant was to undergo one year simple imprisonment; seven years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 201 IPC and in case of default the appellant was to undergo six months additional imprisonment. 2. As this appeal was sent from jail, by order of this Court dated 16.4.2007 Shri S.F.A. Naqvi was appointed as amicus curiae. 3. We have heard Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, lear...
Milkiat Singh (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Bhajan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2422
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1990, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby Appeal No. 83 of 1989, filed by defendant/appellants is dismissed and judgment and decree dated 20.9.1989, passed by Munsif, Kashipur, in Original Suit No. 86 of 1986, decreeing the suit, is affirmed. (Earlier Kashipur was part of District Nainital, now part of district Udham Singh Nagar).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent Bhajan Singh instituted Suit No. 86 of 1986 against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the possession of land in suit and also restraining them from demolition of water channel (nail) The plaintiffs case is that he is bhumidhar (a tenure holder having transferable right) of Khata No. 6, measuring 6.54 acres of land in village ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »