Allahabad Court September 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.
Ram Swarup Vs. Uma Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC635
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing; no one appeared on behalf of tenant respondent, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the landlord petitioner were heard.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 1992 filed by him against tenant respondent. Initially, suit was decreed by J.S.C.C, Jalaun on 23.04.1994, however in revision, the said judgment was set aside by order dated 13.11.T998 and trial court was directed to decide the suit again. After remand, J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Junior Division), Konch, District Jalaun dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 26.07.2004. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed Revision No. 09 of 2004, which was dismissed by III A.D.J., Jalaun at Oral, through judgment and order dated 16.05.2005, hence this writ petition.Admittedly, rent till 31.03.1990 had been paid by the tenant to the landlord. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 60/- per month. The dispute is regarding payment of water tax. Ac...
Swaraj Kumar Vs. Arvind Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3922
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Tenant Swaraj Kumar has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 19.9.2005, passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2004, Arvind Kumar v. Swaraj Kumar passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Moradabad allowing release application, preferred on behalf of the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. Petitioner has been tenant of non-residential accommodation on monthly rent of. Rs. 700 per month situated at opposite H.S.B. Inter College, Moradabad wherein he has been doing his extensive business of brass manufacturing. Arvind Kumar landlord filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 20.10.2003 for release of premises in question in occupation of the tenant for settling his two sons claiming them to be unemployed. Said release application was contested by the petitioner by filing his. written statement on 7.1.2004 and therein plea was taken that petitioner was running ...
T. Chand Bidi Company and ors. Vs. Sh. Ameer Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC325
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit under Section 29 read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying that a decree be granted declaring that the defendants/petitioners are not entitled to use the trade mark which is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff and, that a decree for a permanent injunction be issued restraining, the defendant from using the trade mark No. 154, which was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff in the trade of bidis.2. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C.) was filed. The court below, after considering the matter, allowed the application for grant of a temporary injunction and issued an order dated 3.9.2008 restraining the defendants from using the deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The defendants, being aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction, has filed the present writ peti...
Naresh Chandra Sharma Vs. Avadh Rubber Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]93SCL134(All)
ORDERNarayan Shukla, J.1. Heard Mr. Faisal Ahmed Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1.2. The opposite party No. 1 - Avadh Rubber Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has filed the present company petition for winding of the company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act as the company has failed to pay the salary to the petitioner for some periods and the same has become due.3. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition that for the payment of arrears of salary, the company may not be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act as the arrears of salary is not debt.4. To determine the question as to whether the arrears of salary is debt or not and on default of payment of arrears, the company is liable to be wound up or not, the relevant provisions of the Act are to be consi...
Smt. Gulab Devi Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3720
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. Hearing of this writ petition had been expedited by the Supreme Court through order dated 28.1.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2008.3. This is landlady's writ petition, whose release application on the ground of bona fide need has been rejected by both the courts below. Release application filed under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was registered as P.A. Case No. 36 of 1994. Prescribed Authority A.C.J.M. VIII, Allahabad rejected the release application through order dated 9.11.1998. Against the said order, landlady petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No. 302 of 1998. A.D.J., Court No. 18, Allahabad dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 8.3.2001, hence this writ petition.4. Property in dispute is residential in nature and situate on the ground floor. On th...
Ashok Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3718
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Bipin Pandey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, the learned standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as the appellate order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasl Division, Varanasi by which deficiency of stamp duty has been Imposed on the sale-deed executed by the petitioner. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner purchased agricultural land, being Khata No. 69, plot Nos. 258 and 259 measuring .649 and .331 acres respectively, by means of a registered sale-deed dated 8.5.1997. The petitioner paid stamp duty as per the rates fixed by the District Magistrate applicable for that area for agricultural land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Sub-Registrar by a letter dated 15.5.1998, reported to the District Mag...
Smt. Krishna Devi and ors. Vs. Mahavir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3656
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 1, Mahavir Prasad filed S.C.C. Suit No. 290 of 1987 against Mahesh Prasad the original tenant for his eviction on the ground of default and recovery of rent. Rate of rent is Rs. 23 per month. Property in dispute is a residential house situate on the ground floor in Ram Bagh, Kanpur City and contains one room, verandah, kitchen and common court-yard. The trial court/II A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 22.3.1994. Original tenant Mahesh Prasad since deceased and survived by the petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision No. 64 of 1994 against judgment and decree passed by the trial court. V A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 8.2.2001 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.3. Notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent on 4.8.1986 and was served upon the tenant on 6.8.1986. In the said notice, rent from...
Samay Singh Son of Sri Mehar Chandra and Chaman Singh Son of Sri Balva ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR721]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.2. Petitioners have come up in this petition challenging validity and correctness of an order of transfer dated 3.9.08 passed by respondent No. 3- Vice Chancellor, Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut appended as annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.3. it appears from record that petitioners are class IV employees and the impugned order of transfer has been made after the matter was discussed and a settlement was arrived at between the employers and employees' Union.4. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that it has been passed on wrong assertions; the petitioners had orally informed the University authorities that that farm land of the university is being grabbed by certain persons; that impugned transfer is against the guidelines contained in Govt. transfer policy dated 14.4.1998 wherein ft is provided that 'SAMUH GHA KARMIO KO UNKE GRIH JANPAD MAIN HEE...
Jainendra Singh S/O Late Bhola Singh Vs. the State of U.P. Through Sec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR753]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2- Special Secretary, Shiksha Anubhag-5, U.P., Lucknow to decide petitioner's representation dated 10.11.1999 appended as annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein a prayer was made for providing appointment under dying in harness rules.3. The petitioner's father who was working as assistant teacher, died in harness in the year 1984 and the representation aforesaid was made seeking appointment in the year 1999.4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 6 of a Davison Bench judgment of this Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Jitendra Pratap Singh and Anr. (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1527, which is as under:Thus, the proviso grants power of relaxation where the Board is satisfied that the time limit for making an application would cause undue hardship in the part...
Triloki Nath Agarwal (D) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Yogendra Nath Dixi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC302
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S. P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. This is plaintiffs' writ petition. Original petitioners claiming themselves to be owners-landlords of the house in dispute, filed suit for eviction against original respondents No. 1 to 8 claiming that most of the defendants were their tenants and some of the defendants were subtenants inducted by the tenants. The defendants who were alleged by the plaintiffs to be main tenants filed written statement claiming that they were not the tenants, plaintiffs were not the owners or landlords and that the defendants who were alleged to be the main tenants were owners through the adverse possession over the site of the house in dispute and the house had been constructed by them or their ancestors. They also pleaded and asserted that complicated question of title was involved hence plaintiffs have filed suit before regular civil court and in c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »