Allahabad Court July 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.
Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Ilam Chand Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4198
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of argument no one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Accordingly, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. This is landlord's writ petition whose release application filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 has been rejected by both the courts below. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 24 of 1997 and was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur on 16.6.1999. Against the said Judgment and order landlord-petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No. 15 of 1999. IIIrd Additional District Judge. Saharanpur dismissed the appeal on 6.11.1999 hence this writ petition.3. House in dispute is situate within the city of Saharanpur and contains three rooms, one store room, kitchen, bath-room, latrine, verandah and sahan. Rent is Rs. 100 per month.Case set...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Assistant Manager, (L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC196
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgement and order dated 2nd April 2008 passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur awarding a sum of Rs. 2,57,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% thereon.2. The only one issue has been raised before us by the Insurance Company that there was no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as accepted by the Tribunal. It appears to us that the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court had arrived at such figure of compensation of Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of oral testimony and after the deduction of Rs. 2,000/-, on being 1/3rd deduction of Rs. 6,000/-, arrived at figure of Rs. 4,000/- and the compensation was awarded for Rs. 2,40,000/- along with the funeral expenses etc. It is specifically recorded in the judgement itself that there was no denial or rebuttal on the part of ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2850; 2009(1)AWC187
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Mathura on 16th April, 2008.2. The contention of the insurance company is that the insurance policy is made for the period between 28th June, 2006 and 27th June, 2007. First accident took place on 7th February, 2007 when the claim amount was settled on 21 st May, 2007 in respect of damage of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case that the second accident caused on 18th May, 2007 whereunder the deceased died being third party to such vehicle.3. The Insurance company has contended before us that when the claim was settled on 21st May, 2007 on account of the accident caused by the vehicle on 7th February, 2007, the insurance coverage was extinguished with such retrospective date. The insurance coverage would not have been treated to there on the date of the second accident, i.e., 18th May, 2007.4. We are of the view that the argument...
Jindal Irrigation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: (2010)28VST126(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision arises out of an order dated November 30, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 388 of 1996.2. The applicant, a limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is registered, both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'sprinkler irrigation system' and its installation and erection on works contract. The dispute in the present revision relates to the assessment year 1991-92 with respect to inter-State sale. Orders for erecting and installing the 'sprinkler irrigation system' were given to the applicant by the party situate outside the State of U.P. Under the contract, digging of earth, filing of sand, laying of pipes, connecting of pipes with clamps, fixation of sprinklers in the pipes, making the land plain in original shape and connecting with source of water and commissioning the system were required to be c...
Kedar Ram First (Retired), Collection Peon Son of Shri Ram Tahal Ahir ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR8]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri J.P.N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as a seasonal collection peon on a temporary basis on 8th of June, 1964 and worked in that capacity till he reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. The service record, which has been annexed as Annexure '2' to the writ petition, indicates that from 8th of April, 1964 to 4th of March, 1982, the petitioner has worked intermittently and there are gaps between the first appointment and the subsequent appointment, but, from 01.04.1982 till 31st December, 2001, the service record shows that he has worked continuously without any break in service. The service record also shows that the petitioner was categorised in a particular pay-scale and was not being paid a fixed or a lump-sum amount. Upon his retirement, the petitioner applied for pension, which remained pending, and consequently, the petitioner filed the prese...
Vishwanath @ Bande Son of Kripa Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ149
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Is the Magistrate bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.'), containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence?' is the main question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 31.05.2007, passed by the Spl. Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jhansi in case No. 298 of 2007, (Vishwanath Pandey @ Bande v. Rahees and Ors.), has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.3. The facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that an application was moved by the applicant/revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Spl. Judge (D.A.A.) Jhansi, on 28.05.2007 impleading (1) Rahees (2) Shiv Shanker @ Babloo (3) Udai Narayan (4) Ram Kumar (opposite parties Nos. 2 to...
Muzahir HussaIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ154
ORDERR.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings of complaint case No. 6424 of 2006, Rajani Traders v. Muzahir Hussain under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P. S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh and the summoning' order dated 7-11 -2006 passed by the C.J.M. Aligarh in the above complaint.2. The, facts giving rise to this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 had filed the aforesaid complaint against the accused applicant in the court of C.J.M , Aligarh on 2-9-2006 with these allegations that the accused had purchased cloth from the shop of the complainant opposite party No. 2 on 31-3-2006. In respect of the above transaction, bill No. 2742 had been issued to the accused applicant; and for payment of that bill, the accused applicant issued Cheque No. 868315 dated 29-5-2006 for Ripees 26,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Aligarh Muslim University Branch, Aligarh, and another Cheque No. 86...
Surendra Yadav Vs. Ram Naresh Lal Alias Thakur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3394
S.U. Khan, J.1. The first Writ Petition No. 25024 of 2008 has been filed by the tenant-allottee Surendra Yadav. In that writ petition landlord-respondent Ram Naresh Lal had filed caveat through Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel. When the case was taken up as fresh, Sri A.K. Gupta learned Counsel for Ram Naresh Lal , the landlord-petitioner in the second writ petition pointed out that the said writ petition was also connected with the first writ petition, accordingly both the writ petitions were heard together.2. In the first writ petition petitioner, allottee tenant, Surendra Yadav has described himself as Ex-Member of Parliament, Khalilabad.3. The writ petitions arise out of allotment proceeding. House in dispute was allotted to Surendra Yadav in 1997 and he immediately took possession thereof. On pointed enquiry by the Court from the learned Counsel for him regarding payment of rent, it was categorically stated that till date no rent had been paid. However, learned Counsel stated ...
Hari Nath Vs. Virendra Nath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4102
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.2. The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1981 passed by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.2.1981 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1978. Civil suit was instituted by Ram Adhar alias Rama and Hart Nath, minor adopted son of Ram Adhar alias Rama claiming relief for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.10.1977 registered on 14.11.1977 In favour of Ram Sagar Pandey and other, defendant-respondents. The plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit on 9.8.1978 leaving behind only adopted son namely Hari Nath, appellant. Substitution application was allowed on 24.7.1978.3. Two written statements were filed, one by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 on 21.3.1978 and the other by defendant Nos. 6 to 9 on 30.8.1978. The suit was decreed by 13th Munsif, Varanasi vide its judgment and decre...
Sudhakar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4189
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Constable and was dismissed from the services on 24th August, 1993. His appeal was also rejected on 22nd February, 1994, against which, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 26842 of 1994, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 19th April, 1999. The operative portion of the order is quoted hereunder:The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The dismissal order dated 24.8.1993, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and appellate court order dated 27.2.1994, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this Judgment.3. Based on the aforesaid order, the authorities issued an order dated 5th July, 1999 reinstating the petitioner and further directing that a separate order would be passed subs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »