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.
Maithili Sharan Dixit Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3648
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Sudama Ji Shandilya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and learned standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.8.2002, passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.3. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition are that in the suit, order was passed by Assistant Collector, Orai on 30.7.1998. The decree in respect thereof was issued on 6.11.1998. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, petitioner filed appeal on 4.1.1999 before Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The aforesaid application was rejected vide order dated 22.11.1999. Against the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 22.11.1999...
Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3665
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Ashok Mehta appears on behalf of respondent No. 5.2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter dated 7th January, 2008 issued by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut addressed to District Inspector of Schools, Meerut by which it has been informed that the Regional Level Committee has approved the election dated 27th October, 2007 in which Sri Ravindra Singh was elected as President and Sri Bijendra Singh was elected as Manager on the basis of the report and recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut.3. In the array of the party, the petitioner claimed to be the life member of the General Body of the institution but in the body of the petition there is no mention that the petitioner is the life member of the General Body.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitte...
Raj Nath Pandey Vs. Jwala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3666
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. I have heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', senior advocate assisted by Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Sri Sankatha Rai, senior advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Rai for the respondents. Both parties agree for the final disposal of the appeal at this very stage of admission as only a legal point bereft of factual dispute is required to be considered.2. The dispute is in connection with Arazi No. 73 (old), new number 150 area 0.112 situate In Mauja Chaurikhas, Tehsil Asnaon, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.3. It is said that Bhagwan Singh and Kuber Singh donated the aforesaid Araji sometime in the year 1906-07 to the plaintiffs grandfather Rameshwar Pandey. The area was brought under consolidation vide notification dated 11.7.1964. During the consolidation proceedings the objections relating to the aforesaid land came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.12.1966. Against this order an appeal was preferred by o...
Rama Kant Tripathi Son of Indra Dutt Tripathi, Vs. State of U.P. and M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ459
Arvind K. Tripathi, J.1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the applicants against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, F.T.C. No. 11, Banda under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(1) SC/ST Act, PS. Banda, District Banda.Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and perused the record.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed against the revisionist and others accused persons learned Magistrate directed for registration of the First Information Report and investigation of the case. After the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the co-accused Naimuddin and Rajendra on 7.2.2007 and involvement of the applicants had been found false. After the charges were framed PW-1 was examined on 8.5.2008 and in his examination in chief he has named the revisionist ...
Rajendra Prasad Khanna (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Iind Additional District ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3723
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Landlord respondent No. 2, Smt. Janki Devi since deceased and survived by legal representatives instituted S.C.C./Suit No. 6 of 1992 against tenant petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In the plaint, it was stated that accommodation in dispute, which is situate on the first floor, was constructed in the year 1986/87 and it was assessed for house tax for the first time during the said period, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. The tenant asserted that building in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and let out to him in the year 1978, hence Act was applicable. As far as default is concerned, tenant petitioner deposited entire arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing to claim benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, which is quoted below:20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.(1)...(2)...(3)...(4) In any suit f...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. District Judge and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3646
S.U. Khan, J.1. Landlords respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Magan Bihari Kapoor and Ors. filed an application for enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant petitioner. The agreed rent was Rs. 2,875 per month. Landlords stated that market value was Rs. 12,76.000, hence rent must be fixed at 1/120 of the said figure, i.e., Rs. 10,634 per month. Landlords also filed valuer's report. R.C. and E.O/S.D.M., Etah did not agree with the report of the valuer filed on behalf of the landlords. Taking pragmatic view of the matter, R.C. and E.O. held that in the year 1978. rent was settled at Rs. 2.875 per month and during intervening period of about eight years, market value must have doubled. Accordingly, R.C. and E.O. fixed monthly rent @ Rs. 5,000 per month payable with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 27.3.1996.2. Before R.C. and E.O., the case had been registered as Case No. 6 of 1996. Application by landlo...
Shaukat Ali Vs. Vth Addition District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3651
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the landlords respondents who appeared through caveat.2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 2 Smt. Nafisa Begum on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 29 of 2002. Prescribed Authority/A.C.J. (J.D.) Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 5.3.2005 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlady respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 27 of 2005. A.D.J. Court No. 5 Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 21.5.2008 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment/order of the appellate court.3. Property in dispute is a ...
Pooran Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3726
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was error in the preparation of the map an application was moved under Section 42A of the Act for correction. Consolidation Officer after considering the claim of the petitioner found that the mistake was apparent on the face of record and in exercise of power under Section 42A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') passed the order dated 17.10.2006, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It appears .that by order dated 17.10.2006 right of the Hemraj has been affected and, therefore, he filed revision under Section 48 of the Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the impugned order dated ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3662; [2009(121)FLR633]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. List has been revised. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not present. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri Sameer Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The checking team found that the workman, who was working as a conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C. bus, was carrying 22 passengers without ticket and, on this basis, the workman was charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry was held, in which the Inquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report and other extenuating factors passed an order of removal of the service of the workman. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The terms of the reference order is something like this:Whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner ...
Manoo Prasad Vs. Upper Collector (Prashasan) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3970
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.A notice was issued by the Gaon Sabha to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had made constructions on 15 biswansi of plot No. 638 (approximately 95 square yards) which belonged to the Gaon Sabha and therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the construction, failing which proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would be initiated and damages amounting to Rs. 4,700 would be imposed.2. The petitioner filed his objections stating therein that the petitioner had purchased a portion of land from plot No. 638, from Sachidanand, and had constructed a house prior to the consolidation operations and therefore, the said construction was not a new one and that the construction was existing for quite sometime.In proceedings under Section 122B of the Act, the evidence of the Lekhpal and other witnesses was taken and it was found that the constructions raised by the petitioner was an old one.3. The Tehsil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »