Allahabad Court March 2011 Judgments
Smt. premwati and anr Vs. Shiv shanker and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is against the judgment and award dated 03.09.2003 passed by Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal/Additional District Judge of Court No. 2 in Motor Accident Case No. 193 of 2002. 3. One Km. Vijay Laxmi, aged about 21 years old happens to be daughter and only child of claimant-appellants suffered an accident from Vehicle No. U.P. 30 A 5139 on 05.05.2002. When Km Vijay Laxmi was coming to her residence at Village Khemipur and crossing the road a Jeep No. UP 30 A 5139 driven rashly and negligently hit the girl and in consequence thereof she suffered and succumbed to the injury. A first information report was lodged with regard to accident in question. The claimantappellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act to the extent of Rs. 10,00000/(ten lacks).The Tribunal frame...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Yadav and ors Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. These four writ petitions relate to the dispute of the electoral College and the election of the office-bearers of the Committee of Management of Sri Yadvesh Inter College, Nauperwa, District Jaunpur, which is an institution governed and recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution is managed through a Scheme of Administration which makes a provision for the election of the Committee of Management.2. The background of the dispute begins with the previous history relating to the elections of the Committee of Management.3. Sri Murlidhar Yadav the petitioner in the first two writ petitions was elected as the Manager in the year 1995 on the strength of an electoral College of 207 Members. He claimed re-elections on 6.9.1998 with 70 Members as the term then was 3 years. A rival claim with regard to the said election was set up by one Sri Ajay Yadav on the strength of a 255 member electoral College, who was recognized by the educational aut...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Pahtak and Others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Chanda ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. A supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. This writ petition was heard thrice and the matter was adjourned earlier to enable the learned counsel for the parties to assist the Court with the aid of certified copy of the Chak map as well as the other documents relating to the allotment of the plots about which the dispute has been raised. 2. Today after the matter was heard, Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 8 submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally on the basis of the records that are available. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has also adopted the same arguments. 4. The dispute relates to the allotment of chaks at the stage of Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.5. The chequered history of the case has already been detailed in the writ petition and need not be reproduced again. The limited controversy that has now arisen stands narrowed...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Anil Rice Mill Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. On oral prayer made by Sri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to make correction in the description of respondent no. 5 in the Writ Petition as well as in the Stay Application. 2. Necessary correction will be made during the course of the day.3. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took Cash Credit Facility from the respondent no. 5 - Bank of Baroda.4. The petitioner committed default in respect of the said Cash Credit Facility Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated for sale of the secured asset.5. Auction Notice dated 22.2.2011 has been published in the Newspaper Amar Ujala dated 22.2.2011.6. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said Auction Notice.7. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is impugning the proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record.2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 5.3.2011 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.2, Kaushambi in sessions trial no. 210 of 2007, arising out of crime no. 222 of 2006, under sections 218, 219, 466, 194 and 120-B IPC, police station Manjhanpur, district Kaushambi. It appears that in the aforesaid sessions trial, the applicant, who is an accused, moved an application at the stage of defence evidence to summon the inquiry report held against him on administrative side and also to summon Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J. (the then District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi) for proving the inquiry report but in the last the applicant changed the second request and moved an application for appointment of Commissioner to examine Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J. The le...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and Another Vs. Tufail Ahmad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the judgement dated 8.2.2006 of this Court mainly for the reason that in second appeal reappraisal of evidence cannot be done and that no substantial question of law arises herein. The plaintiff-appellants preferred Special Leave to Appeal Petition No. 8287 of 2006 which was allowed and Civil Appeal No. 2349 of 2008 was finally decided by the Supreme Court on 31.3.2008 and the matter was remitted back to this Court for re-decision of the appeal and the application filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. On 23.7.2008, the following three substantial questions of law were framed in this appeal:- "1. Whether the sale deed dated 7.7.1982 can be declared to be null and void on the ground that the land had been acquired even though the acquisition proceeding in respect of the said land had not been completed prior to the said date as neither an award under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrama Singh and ors. Vs. Mirza Anis Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1986 (Mirza Anis Ahmad vs. Chandrama Singh and others) by Additional District Judge, (Special Judge), Ghazipur.2. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether the Registered Power of Attorney under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 33 and Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act could be revoked without registration or cancellation thereof3. Under an order dated 16.08.2010 (passed in this appeal) this appeal survives only between the Appellant No.2 namely Ramjas Singh Yadav and the Respondent namely Mirja Anis Ahmad. Mirja Anis Ahmad, who was the owner of Plot No.273 area 0- 18-0 biswa situate in Village Baleshar, Pargana Ihaburala, District Ghazipur executed a Registered Power of Attorney on 17.03.1967 in favour of Ram Ker Singh who executed registered Sale Deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Das and Others Vs. Tej Bahadur Saxena and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenants challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 9.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2008, Devi Das and others versus Tej Bahadur Saxena and others as well as the judgment and order dated 16.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, J.P. Nagar in P.A. Case No. 5 of 1994, Tej Bahadur and another versus Shobha Ram and others. 3. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the shop in dispute as described in the plaint of P.A. Case No. 5 of 1994 during the pendency of the writ petition.4. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the landlords. They filed P.A. Case No. 5 of 1995 in the Court of Prescribed ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lata Vs. Joginder Lal Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.02.2008 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 2005 and order dated 07.02.2011, passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2008. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of the accommodation in dispute which has been purchased by the present respondent from its earlier owner Sri Devendra Kumar Chhabra, by registered sale-deed dated 5.7.2002. The landlord-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 2005 in respect of shop in dispute being Shop No. 86 (new number 89) located at Mohalla Purva, Kamboh Gang in front of Jain Dharmshala, Railway Road, Meerut, inter alia that petitioner was tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.180/- per month since its erstwhile owner Devendra Kumar Chabda and has not paid rent to the landlord since 5.12.2004. It was also averred in the plaint that the petitioner had changed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Narayan and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. This petition questions the correctness of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11 th November, 2010 setting aside the remand order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer holding that the respondent no. 2- Sarswati is the real heir entitled to succeed to the holding of Khata No. 304 plot no. 695/5 and accordingly, the name of the petitioners should be expunged and should be entered in the main column of Bhumidhar. The dispute began with the filing of the objections of both sides. The respondent no. 2-Sarswati on 10 th August, 1990 filed an objection, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. The said objection simply discloses that the respondent no. 2 has already acquired Bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute and that the petitioners' father Sripati got his name entered with the collusion of the local Lekhpal, who had no concern with the property in dispute. She further contended ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »