Allahabad Court April 2009 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.
Smt. Kanti Devi and anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial/Second) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2525
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial/Second), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (respondent No. 1) in Appeal No. 42 of 2000.2. It appears that the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'the Z.A. Act'), inter alia, praying for a decree declaring them to be bhumtdhar of the land/pokhri in question. The said suit was numbered as Suit No. 91 under Section 229B of the Z.A. Act.3. Copy of the plaint of the said suit has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.4. A written statement dated 20.1.1998 was filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur by the order dated 5.6.2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) dismis...
Bhagmani (D) Through L.R. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4139
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondents even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.2. This is plaintiff's writ petition. Original petitioner filed O. S. No. 137 of 1978 against contesting respondents before Munsif, Ballia. The suit was transferred for disposal to VIIIth Additional Munsif, Ballia. The valuation of the suit in the original plaint was shown to be Rs. 209.60. Afterwards plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint. Amendment was also sought in the valuation clause of the plaint and it was prayed that suit must be permitted to be valued at Rs. 10,003.84. The VIIIth Additional Munsif through order dated 15.5.1980 invited objections of the defendant on the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and fixed 18.7.1980 for disposal of amendment application. However, on the very next date, i.e., 16.5.1980, the VIIIth Additional Munsif wrote a letter to the District Judg...
Smt. Seema Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2204
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Narainpur District Azamgarh. District Magistrate, Azamgarh through order dated 6.2.2007 decided the matter against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 5-Smt. Kiran Tiwari. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Earlier Smt. Kiran Tewari had filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of on 9.1.2007 with the direction to the District Magistrate to decide the matter.3. Advertisement was issued on 27.10.2005. 11 persons applied. Gram Shiksha Samiti selected the petitioner who was at Sl. No. 6 and Smt. Hem Lata Singh who was at Sl. No. 7. The resolution was passed on 22.11.2005. Respondent No. 5 was at Sl. No. 8. She was not selected as she had not produced the requisite certificate in original.4. The contention of the petitioner before District Magistrate was that certificate of working of respondent No. 5 as Instructor...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Virendra Bharti and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2383
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench in Application No. O.A./II/279/02DEOS, Shri Virendra Bharti and Anr. v. Union of India, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation to a tune of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest on account of death of deceased Arun Kumar Bharti in an untoward incident on 23rd September, 2001.2. There is no dispute with regard to nature of accident resulting in death of the deceased. From the evidences and the submissions of the contesting parties, it appears that the deceased was travelling by train having valid ticket but his body was leaning out of the coach when struck against a signal pole of the railway, as a result whereof he fell down from the train and expired. Parents of the deceased are the claimants. The real controversy is whether the accident is self-inflicted injury or untoward incident. The Tri...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. Promod Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2398
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this case on 9.4.2009 following order was passed:Counter and rejoinder-affidavit on delay condonation application have been exchanged. The Court inquired from the learned Counsel for both the parties that in case after hearing both of them delay is condoned, whether the learned Counsel for both the parties would be ready for final hearing at once. Learned Counsel for both the parties expressed their readiness for final hearing of the revision forthwith in case delay was condoned.After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties delay of about a month in filing revision is condoned on payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost which shall be paid to the learned Counsel for the respondent by tomorrow 10.00 a.m.Put up tomorrow for final hearing.Thereafter, on 10.4.2009, cost was paid and arguments on merit were heard.3. This tenant's revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Court Act is directed against order dated 20.11.2008, passe...
J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2782
Amitava Lala and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The petition raises an interesting question as to whether the petitioner has been lawfully discontinued as Member of the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as amended by Act No. 43 of 2006.2. A State Human Rights Commission was set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh under a Notification dated 4.4.1996 of the provisions of the aforesaid Act ; a copy of the said Notification constituting the State Human Rights Commission is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.3. The petitioner, who was undisputedly a District Judge under the Judicial Services of the State of Uttar Pradesh, was nominated and appointed as a Member of the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission under the provisions of Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act as it stood then. The Notification to that effect was issued on 29.6.2006 ; a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The terms of appointment of the petition...
Smt. Manoj Kumari and ors. Vs. Gokaran Nath Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All178; 2009(3)AWC2904
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2001, passed by Additional Special District and Session Judge, Fatehpur, whereby the application No. 34Kha filed by the claimant/applicant under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. in Claim Petition No. 109 of 1998 has been rejected.2. The husband of the revisionist No. 1 died in motor accident on 25.4.1998. The claimant/applicant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was mentioned UT W-5467 in the F.I.R., Subsequent to the filing of the claim petition owner of the vehicle appeared and filed its written statement stating that the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was wrongly mentioned by the claimant and in fact the vehicle No. UT W-6075 was involved in the accident and not UT W-5467. Police after the investigation also submitted the charge-sheet on 27.6.1998 Vehicle No. UT W-6075 was found to be invo...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR406(All)
1. The present income-tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been admitted, vide order dated January 24, 2008, on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in law in holding that two separate assessments be made for the separate periods ignoring the fact that this is a case covered under Section 187(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inasmuch as this was not a case of dissolution of the firm but only a change in constitution of the firm and the reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the cases of Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT : [1988]169ITR761(SC) and CIT v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar : [1982]136ITR379(Delhi) have wrongly been interpreted rather these cases are in favour of the Revenue ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the addition of R...
Rajendrapal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2118
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Veerpal, Chhaila and Lakhmi were co-tenure holders of several agricultural plots. They filed a suit for partition. Preliminary decree was passed declaring share of each to be 1/3rd. Thereafter, final decree was prepared in terms of compromise which was verified on 20.1.1981 and final decree was actually prepared on 13.1.1982. Separate plots were allotted to each of the three original co-tenure holders. Some of them sold the plots which had come in their exclusive share (or parts thereof). Thereafter through another compromise these three persons got the final decree earlier prepared set aside and fresh compromise decree passed readjusting the plots in such a manner that plots or parts thereof already sold by one party were reallotted to another party. Through my aforesaid judgment which is sought to be recalled/modified, I set aside the subsequent compromise partition decree and set aside the orders dated 25.11.1982, 21.6.1984 an...
Mattukki (D.) Through L.R. and anr. Vs. Smt. Rajwanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2771
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A. K. Rai learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellants and Sri S. K. Verma learned senior counsel assisted by Siddharth Verma for the defendant respondent. This second appeal of the year 1996 has been listed for final hearing and is being decided finally today itself.2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 14.12.1995, passed in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1993 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sonebhadra whereby the first appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff Phekani filed a suit for cancellation of Will deed dated 29.11.1984. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiff Phekani was the child of Sri Gajadhar and Aliyari. After the mother Aliyari died Gajadhar married a second time to Sugani alias Ramdei who already had a minor daughter by the name of Rajwanti. These proceedin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »