Allahabad Court February 2011 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.
Swami Nath Vs. Iind A.D.J.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. In this case arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard and judgment was reserved on 25.11.2010. On the same date following order was passed on the substitution application. "Twice steps were taken but no one has appeared on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent no.2. Sri Prabhker Singh, learned counsel, who was representing respondent no.2, states that in spite of his several letters heirs of respondent no.2 have not contacted him. Accordingly, substitution application is allowed" 2. Respondent no.2, Sri Ram was the only contesting respondent in this writ petition. 3. Petitioner instituted original suit no.542 of 1987 against original respondent no.2 for the relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from demolishing particular construction of the petitioner and from cutting the trees standing over sahan (court yard) of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that land in dispute was his rasta. Written statement copy of which is A...
Committee of Management, Shri Shanker Parwati, Hanuman Ji Mandir Samit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Heard Sri Prem Chand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.S. Tiwari for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners contend that they had moved a memorandum of association along with an application for registration of a Society in relation to Shri Shanker Parwati Hanuman Ji Mandir, Village - Saipur, Post Birawn Baragaon, District Varanasi. For the same temple, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also appear to have moved before the Assistant Registrar for registration of the Society basing their claim on different grounds. The Assistant Registrar was seized of both the applications. The provision for registration as applicable under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is Section-3 and the procedure to be followed for registration of a new Society has been prescribed through an amendment brought about in the State of U.P. and captioned as Section 3 (1) of the said Act quoted h...
ishwar Chandra Gupta and ors Vs. State of U.P. and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Heard Mr.Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Shraddha Agarwal, Dr.Salil Kumar Srivatava and Mr.Hari Om Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr.D.K.Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr.A.R.Masoodi, learned Advocate. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve Division, Pallia, Kheri, whereby they have been evicted from the forest land as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Lakhimpur Kheri upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has passed the order in exercise of power provided under Section 61-B(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended vide The Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000) as well as under Section 34-A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended in 2002 & 2006). 3. The land in q...
Nagar Panchayat Sahabad,rampur Vs. Chhunnu Khan and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Heard Sri Anurag Pandey holding brief of Sri D.V. Jaiswal learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. This petition has been filed assailing the appellate order passed by the Respondent No.12 Collector, Rampur dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and it also assails the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by the respondent No.11 Sub Divisional Officer, Sahabad district Rampur whereby the contesting respondent nos. 1 to 10 have been permitted to run a market over their bhumidhari land under Section 142 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950. 3. The background of the case is that the order was passed in favour of contesting respondents dated 8.5.1992 and a copy of the said order has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit dated 21.12.2001. A perusal of the said order demonstrates that the contesting respondents have been allowed to hold a market over their bhumidhari land situated in Village Sahabad on every Tuesday and Saturday. This order accord...
Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad Through Its Secretary C.V. In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. The Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad through its Secretary C.V. Innes, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of the decision dated 24.07.2010 taken by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, proceeding to annul the resolution dated 28.05.2007. 2. Brief background of the case, as is reflected from the record, is that there is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the name and style of "Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad". The society in question was registered on 09.02.1988 with Registration No.1-12/1888 with Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. In the year 1952 certain amendments were affected. Thereafter, in the year 1975, Societies Registration Act, 1860 was amended qua its applicability to the State of U.P. by making provision for periodical renewal of registration certificate of the society. Such renewals were originally visualized for a period of two years, but in the year 1984 furthe...
Ajit Raizada And Others Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. And Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioners for absorption in pursuance of the U.P. Absorptions of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Services Rules, 1991. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to decide pending representation of the petitioners dated 25.4.2008, pending before respondent no. 4 (Annexure '11' to this writ petition); (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus, commanding the respondents to declare the order dated 1.12.2003, issued by the respondent no. 3, as null and void; (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature, whi...
Ms Nutech Pakcaging Limited and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.M.G. Asghar, for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. These two writ petitions, raising common question of facts and law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The Writ Petition No.1952 of 2011 is treated as leading writ petition and for deciding the issues raised, it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings in the leading writ petition. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the recovery certificate dated 26nd March, 2002/22nd July, 2010 sent by respondent No.4 to the Collector, Ghaziabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,43,57,761.68. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents not to make recovery of the amount in dispute from the petitioners and its guarantors by adopting coercive method. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged ...
Bharat Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Heard Dr. Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of case no. 17 of 1999 arising out of Case Crime No. 581 of 1997 pending before the court of Special Judge ( Prevention and Corruption Act), Lucknow as also the order dated 3rd of March 2005 passed therein, rejecting the application, being application no. A-15, dated 6th of July, 2004 presented on behalf of the State Government under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the case pursuant to the First Information Report registered against the petitioner under Section 13(1) (E), 13 (1) (D) and 13(2) of the Anti Corruption Act, the matter is investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The State Government on the basis of the investigation report also sanctioned the prosecution against the petitioner by means of order dated 12th of January, 1999 on the strength of charge-sheet...
West Watch Comp. Through Its Prop. Vs. Prescribed Autority/ Small Caus ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Heard Sri Mohd Arif Khan learned senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan ,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kabir Ahmand and Sri Anurag Srivastava ,learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by opposite party no.1, Prescribed Authority/ Small Causes Court, Lucknow . 3. Controversy involved in the present case relates to shop no.64 situated on the ground floor of building no. 31/72, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Police-station-Hazratganj, Lucknow which is bounded as under:- East: Shop in occupation of N.L. Roay Watch Company West: Shop in occupation of M/s Mangal Prasad & sons North: Lane South: Footpath and thereafter Mahatma Gandi Marg, Hazratganj,Lucknow 4. On 20.3.2008 Sri Mohammad Asif Naseer/ opposite party no.2 the landlord /owner of shop no. 64 moved an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building Regulations ...
Rakesh JaIn Vs. Ms. Wellwon Builders (India) Private Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. The applicant, by means of this application, seeks the following relief:- "Allow the present petition and appoint an independent arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and thereby, constitute arbitral tribunal for settlement of all disputes raised by the Applicant herein against the respondent from out of and/or touching upon and/or in relation to the 15 separate Agreements dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure A1 colly) between them for sale and purchase of 15 flats (namely, Flats Nos. F-G, F-2, F-4, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 in its River Front Apartments Project at 70, Dalibagh Lucknow) and payments made there against by the Applicant..." 2. There is no dispute that in the agreement entered into between the applicant and the respondents, there is an arbitral clause, which is worded as under:- "32. All or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of this Agreement including the interpretati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »