Allahabad Court May 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.
Committee of Management and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2849
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. Heard Sri J.P. Rai holding brief for Sri Chandan Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri T. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant in the impleadment application filed on Dehalf of Ved Prakash Sharma.2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the notice dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Regional Office, 233, New Mohanpuri, Meerut (respondent No. 4).3. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that the last election of the Committee of Management of the Society, namely, Church City Junior High School Shiksha Samiti Sadar, Andarkort, Thathervada, Kalal Khana, near Tilak Park, Sadar, Meerut Cantt., Meerut was held on 31.1.2005, and the said Committee of Management was recognised by the Registrar, Firms, Societies...
Raman Agnihotri Vs. Arun Kumar Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2865
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant coupled with an application for condonation of delay of 336 days. Parties have exchanged affidavits in the application for condonation of delay. The ground taken by the appellant is that award was made on 6th December, 2007. A review application was made before the Court of workmen's compensation, which was rejected on 31st March, 2008. Again a review application was made which was also rejected on 12th November, 2008, therefore, there is no remedy for the appellant excepting filing of the appeal. There is no deliberate cause of delay in filing the appeal. When we have called upon learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to give reply whether application for review is available for the court of workmen's compensation or not, he answered that as per Rule 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (for short 'the Rules') he is entitled to make application for review. Although, the learned Counsel has not referred Sect...
Rajput Advertising Service Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3027
Sunil Ambwani and Virendra Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm carrying on business of advertising. The firm is registered with North Eastern Railways for displaying hoardings after entering into contract at Kalyanpur surrounding areas since 1990. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.2.2009, passed by Asstt. Commercial Manager, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, U.P. and for renewing the contract for the year 2009 -10 on an increase at 10% of the agreed rate for the previous year. Notices were accepted by Shri Govind Saran for all the respondents except respondent No. 5, a private firm. Shri Govind Saran has filed a counter-affidavit to which a rejoinder-affidavit is filed by the petitioner.2. We have heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, the counsel for the petitioner and Shri Govind Saran for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.3. It is admitted that prior to July, 2007 the petitioner firm had entered into a contract with the Divisional Railwa...
Sood and Company Vs. Smt. Ghisa Devi Alias Geeta Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3568
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order by the concerned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 24th March, 2009 rejecting an application under Order IX, Rule 13 coupled with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) The court below has observed that when a party appears even as an Imposter, principle of Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside a decree ex parte as a defendant cannot be made applicable. However, we find that there is fallacy in the order of the court below. The application is not only made under such order and rule alone but also being coupled with Section 151 of the C.P.C. Such section has independent face value. Section 151 of the C.P.C. speaks as follows:151. Saving of inherent powers of Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to pr...
Smt. Kunti and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2613
S.U. Khan, J.1. Learned standing counsel has supplied copies of some orders.2. The Court is not pleased with the conduct of the matter in question by the respondents. Inspite of repeated warning by this Court that the name of no person shall be deleted from the revenue record particularly if it is continuing for a very long period without hearing him (vide Chaturgun v. State, : 2005 (1) RD 244 : 2005 (2) AWC 1256), still revenue authorities in U.P., are very much fond of scoring off the entries by using the magic word 'farzi'. Detailed inquiries are said to have been held, in the instant case, however, it was considered to be frivolous to hear the concerned persons. If an authority goes out of the way to deny opportunity of hearing to the person concerned then a doubt may come in the mind of the Court that authority was of the opinion that its case is extremely weak and it will not be able to pass the order which it intends to pass in case the party concerned is heard.3. On the other h...
Daya Ram Budhrani Vs. Addl. District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Dacoity ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2859
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri V.C. Mishra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Gupta, the learned Counsel for the opposite party.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for possession of the property. This suit was eventually dismissed by the trial court, against which, a civil appeal was filed. An application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants seeking permission of the Court to amend its written statement and incorporate paragraphs 30A to 30J after paragraph 30 of the written statement.3. The defendants contended that during the pendency of the Sappeal, the appellant filed two documents, Paper Nos. 41C and 50C, which indicate that a fraud was committed by the heirs of Khadim Ali, and that, the judgment given by the Supreme Court in Jafar Alt Shah (Dr.) v. Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jhansi : AIR 1967 SC 106, was an outcome of fraud, and therefore, it becomes necessary and...
Shri Shankar Straw Products Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Chairperson, Debts ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2902
Arun Tandon, J.1. Petitioners before this Court had admittedly taken loan from the respondent bank. It is further apparent from the records that they had committed default in repayment of the same. This resulted in original suit being filed by the bank against the loanee as early as in the year 1996. The total amount subject-matter of the suit was Rs. 86,06,818.2. The writ petitioners participated in the civil suit proceedings. It took seven adjournment on their behalf before written statement could be filed on 28.10.1997. The case was again adjourned successively for framing issues.3. It appears that the suit was transferred with the establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and then to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Allahabad. One of the defendant in the suit namely Shamti Devi expired A substitution application was made and respondent Nos. 8 to 10 were added as proforma respondent. When the matter was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad, an order was passed ...
Smt. Radha Devi Sahu Vs. Indra Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3150
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The S.C.C. Suit No. 80 of 1998 was filed by the present petitioner namely Smt. Radha Devi Sahu alongwith Beni Prasad for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against Devendra Bahadur Singh (who has died during the pendency of the litigation) and his brother Indra Bahadur Singh who is respondent No. 1, herein. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alai that Devendra Bahadur Singh was the tenant of house No. 300B, Attarsuiya, Allahabad, who is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,456 and whose tenancy has been determined by a notice dated 15th of June, 1998. During the pendency of the said suit Beni Prasad, the co-plaintiff, expired. It was stated by Smt. Radha Devi, the other co-plaintiff, that the property in dispute has been gifted by Beni Prasad in her favour by means of registered gift deed dated 9th of February, 1996.2. The suit was not contested by Shri Devendra Bahadur Singh. It was contested only by Indra Bahadur Singh. He claimed the relationshi...
Vindhayachal Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3914
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner in the year 1989-90 took a loan of Rs. 92,000 for purchasing tractor from State Bank of India, Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh Branch. After repaying an amount of Rs. 15,000, petitioner did/could not repay the remaining amount of the loan. Recovery certificate of Rs. 2,01,756 was issued against the petitioner and sent to the Tehsil authorities. In pursuance of the said recovery certificate the tractor was sold on 17.2.1995 for Rs. 53,100. Thereafter, another recovery certificate was issued on 15.6.1995 for remaining amount which was shown to be Rs. 1,56,382. In pursuance of the said recovery certificate petitioner's agricultural plot No. 378 area 1.5 hectares was directed to be auctioned. Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,02,500 on 14.8.1995. However, the aforesaid plot of the petitioner was auctioned on 22.1.1996. Collector on behalf of the State Government purchased the plot in question for Re. 1, Annexure-2 is bid/auc...
imamuddIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4477
Rajesh Chandra, J.1. This 'appeal has been filed by accused appellant Imamuddin against the Judgement and order dated 26-9-2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1999 convicting him for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause. The appellant has further been convicted for the offence under Section 25 of he Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years and with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The background facts are that one Zaheer Ahmad resident of Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh submitted a written report (Ext. Kal) at Police Station, Devgaon on 13-11-1997 at 5.05 p.m. and alleged that his brother Nabi Sarvar alias Khaddar was doing some job with Rais son of Idris resident of Jehatmandpur Police Station, Devgaon, district Azamgarh but he left the job about three months...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »