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.
Vandana Patel Vs. Smt. Phoolkali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2009
Reported in: AIR2010All2; 2009(3)AWC3117
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri M. N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri Gulab Chandra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.2. After the close of the evidence, the trial court fixed a date for arguments and on that date, the defendant did not appear. Accordingly, the trial court passed an order in accordance with the provision of Order XVII, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and proceeded ex parte against the defendant and fixed a date for hearing of the matter ex parte. The trial court, thereafter heard the matter and decreed the suit. The defendant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was not maintainable, against which, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.3. The trial court rejected the application of the petitioner, as not maintainable on the ground that the C...
Smt. Kunti Devi and ors. Vs. Guru Ram Vishwakarma (Madhukar) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2628
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 plaintiff. Through this writ petition order dated 22.8.2008. passed in O.S. No. III of 1980 and order dated 20.2.2009, passed in Civil Revision No. 207 of 2008 which was directed against the first order have been challenged and prayer of quashing the entire proceedings of the suit has also been made. Copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the defendants.2. Through the impugned orders application of the defendants petitioners for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been dismissed. It was alleged in the said application that property in dispute is situate within the limits of a city, where Zamindari is still continuing hence it is governed by U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 that plaintiff had also filed a suit before Revenue Court (S.D.O. Sadar, District Ghazipur) under Sectio...
Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj Vs. Roza Power Supply Company and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2871
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is arising out of judgment and order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur dated 1st May, 2009 granting an ad interim injunction to the extent as follows:During the period defendants were prohibited they should not interfere in Arazi Gata No. 14 area 0.519 hectare situated at village Rampur Barakatpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, district Shahjahanpur, purchased by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to comply Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of C.P.C.(Emphasis supplied)2. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before this Court that the order impugned has been passed ex barte without considering the case of the appellant in spite of recording the fact that the appellant is co-sharer of the property. He further contended that non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of C.P.C. is fatal, for which appellate Court can interfere and set aside such interim order so passed by the trial court. He then cont...
Om Prakash Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3189
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and Dilip Gupta, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.4.2009, passed In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60991 of 2006, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54934 of 2006 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2007 and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to these appeals are that Om Prakash Awasthi--writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') offered his candidature for appointment as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis in C.A.S. Intermediate College, Fareedpur, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') in response to an advertisement dated 8th of June, 1998 as provided under U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. He was appointed on 6th of July, 1998 as L.T. grade teacher in English on purely ad hoc basis till a regularly selected candidate joins the said post in the College. The Committee of Managemen...
Ram Kripal Katiyar Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3202
S. Rafat Alam and Krishna Murari, JJ.1. This is intra Court appeal against the order of Hon'ble single Judge dated 28.4.2009, dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition No. 21323 of 2009. It appears that the appellant being aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.4.2009 granting approval to the order of the Committee of Management placing him under suspension, filed writ petition which is dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal.2. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the District Inspector of Schools while considering the grant of approval ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing, in the absence of which the impugned order suffers from the vice of natural justice. It is submitted that the appellant had made complaint against the Manager in respect of various irregularities committed by him on account of which he was having grudge against the appellant and to satisfy the same, mala fldely placed him under suspen...
B.H.P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director, Industries, U.P. (Facilitatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All155
ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.2. Petitioner before this Court is a private small scale industrial unit covered under the provisions of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2006'). Petitioner is engaged in manufacturers of, engineering equipments and is stated to have entered into contract with respondent No. 3, M/s. Jay Pee Enterprises for execution of the certain work contract.3. There exists a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 qua nature of the work performed under the aforesaid contract. As a consequence thereto, there is a dispute with regard to payment of money in terms of the contract between the parties. Respondent No. 3, who...
Smt. Mithlesh Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3152
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. These are two appeals by the claimants against the judgment, order and award dated 27.2.90 by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Agra in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 1975 and 7 of 1975 whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 94,261.92 and Rs. 1,53,798.74 respectively, damages @ Rs. 18 per sq. yard and interest thereon at the flat rate of 9% from the date of possession.2. The land in dispute was acquired under the provisions of Section 357 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') which is pari material with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The notification under the aforesaid provision was issued on 23.4.1960 and the notification under Section 363 of the Adhiniyam which is analogous to Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.9.1964. The possession was taken on 18.6.1971. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 22.6.72 against which the above t...
Hemant Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3096
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner has sought indulgence of the Court and has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 30th March, 2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Lalitpur. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to join his duties with all consequential benefits and salary.3. The facts of the case as culled out from the records are that petitioner is posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Outpost Kailguwan, Police Station Banpur, Lalitpur. He was in-charge of police station aforesaid. It is claimed that while petitioner was on special patrolling due to Lok Sabha Election on 29th March, 2009 alongwith two other constables on their motorcycles, the law and order situation arose when they reached Chiraulan Churaha, crossing of village Kailguan.4. The version of the petitio...
iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4016
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an appeal of the insurance company. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, an accident took place by a Bolero Car and the driver of the Bolero Car sustained injuries. An application was made by the injured before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') saying that while he was driving the Bolero Car, a motor car came from the opposite side wrongly and when he tried to save it, his vehicle turned turtle, due to which the accident took place. Upon accepting such statement the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut by its judgment and order dated 6.4.2009 held that the claimant will be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,67,048 including Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 48 for medical bills.2. By preferring this appeal the insurance company has contended that there is no corroboration of statement of the injured with the record. Neither any other person of the vehi...
Nand Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3118
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Challenging the legality and validity of the two orders dated 27.2.1992, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Firozabad and dated 12.1.1993 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in a proceeding under Section 33/40 of the Indian Stamp Act, initiated against the petitioners demanding a sum of Rs. 59,656.50 towards deficiency in stamp duty and Rs. 500 towards the penalty, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The facts of the case may be noted in brief:During audit inspection, for the period of March, 1989 to December, 1989 it was found by them that a lease deed being document No. 4505 dated 10.5.1989 was executed for a period of 10 years on annual rent of Rs. 400 on which stamp duty of Rs. 90 was paid. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with regard to the lease deed of 15000 sq. ft. area of Plot No. 187 executed by Smt. Premwati wife of Nand Kumar Agrawal. The said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »