Allahabad Court March 2011 Judgments
Musharraf Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. Heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.2. The case of the petitioner is that in response to a notice issued to him under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter after referred to as the Act), the petitioner submitted his reply. After considering the reply of the petitioner as also the evidence adduced by him and hearing his counsel, the District Magistrate discharged the notice after holding that the petitioner does not appear to be having the characteristics of 'Goonda' as defined under the Act. By the said order, bail bonds have also been cancelled and sureties were discharged.3. However, by the same order dated 26.2.2011, which has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Budaun, a direction has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Chauhan and Others Vs. State of U.P.and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and perused the record.2. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it appears that all the offences are bailable. 3. The learned Magistrate, keeping in view the materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that there were sufficient material on record to summon the accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based on proper appraisal of the relevant material. The petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the personal attendance of the applicants in the court may be directed to be exempted. This type of direction cannot be issued by this Court in exercise of inherent power, however, the learned Magistrate has power under section 205 Cr.P.C. to grant exemption from the personal attendance of the accused and in appropriate cases that power should be exercised so that the accused persons, particularly, where a large number of persons have been made acc...
Tag this Judgment!itendra Kumar and Another Vs. Vikram Parmar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed SCC Suit No. 39 of 2002, Vikram Parmar versus Jitendra Kumar and others in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Saharanpur for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the plaint it was averred that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable as the property in question was assessed for the first time in the year 1996. 3. Defendants-petitioners contested the aforesaid suit by filing written statement interalia, that the property in question is an old construction which is proved from the fact that erstwhile landlord had also filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and had deposed before the court below that the shop in question is in tenancy for the last 15 years prior to 1984. Issue no.2 regarding applicab...
Tag this Judgment!Kalloo Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahoba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the supplementary affidavit filed today. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were ex-parte and therefore the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have erred in not allowing the restoration application of the petitioner and have proceeded on merits. 3. Learned counsel with the aid of the supplementary affidavit submits that there was a document available on record which indicates that it was Parsadwa who was entered as a hereditary tenant in Ziman 8 and therefore it cannot be presumed that the property had been acquired by the ancestors. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Consolidation Officer committed a manifest error by recording the names of the respondents 4 and 5.4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the admitted pedigree is as follows: Balla. Kharga (Faut). Murtia. Parsadwa (Faut). Churaman. Lach...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. There is no need to issue notice to opposite party no.2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 19.1.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.5, Etah in S.T. No.649 of 2008, State v. Surendra Singh and others under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act, whereby application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants for permission to crossexamine P.W.1 was rejected.3. The facts, as revealed by order dated 19.1.2011, are that on 19.8.2009, the case was fixed for evidence. Examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Biri Singh was recorded before lunch and the case was posted after lunch for cross-examination. At about 2:35 p.m., the application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the defence counsel on the ground that he was busy in another Court. The said application was rejected and opportunity for cross-examination ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Madhu and Another Vs. Collector of District Deputy Director Conso ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The present writ petition arises out of a dispute relating to the claim of petitioners on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed on 22nd June, 2006 by the tenure-holder Sri Sabir who is stated to have died on 23rd August, 2006. 2. Sri Siddharth Nandan learned counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6 contends that the petitioners have virtually purchased litigation and they are now trying to rake the issue after 17 years of the matter having been closed under a compromise dated 5.12.1985. 3. Sri Siddharth Nandan submits that the factum of the compromise could not be disproved and as a matter of fact it relates only to Plot No. 819 which concerns respondents 7 and 8 and not the petitioners. He further contends that the entire litigation which has been instigated on the highly time barred appeal filed by Sabir, in which the petitioners have got themselves impleaded and substituted, relates only to Plot No. 819 and not with regard to the sale deeds in favour of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Mohan and Others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N.Shukla for the respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. Learned standing counsel inspite of time having been granted has not filed any counter affidavit.2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of finally at this stage3. The issue raised before this Court is that the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 5-C of the U.P.C.H.Act were without jurisdiction and as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error by upholding the order dated 24.9.2009.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is erroneous in law inasmuch the Settlement Officer Consolidation could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for granting an interim injunction of the nature as prayed for. He further submits that the construction which was existing was not dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dhani and Others Vs. D.D.C. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in this petition relates to the inheritance of the land holdings of late Sri Dahau. The admitted pedigree is that the petitioners Sheodhani, Murahoo and Babu Nandan are the collaterals of the branch of two uncles of late Dahau. This is evident from the pedigree, which is extracted in the orders passed by the authorities below. The respondent nos.4 to 7 are the daughters of late Dahau, who claim succession to his property under the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R.; Act. 3. The petitioners claim succession through an unregistered will dated 3rd August, 2010 that was set up by them, and on the strength thereof, the matter was contested before the consolidation authorities for recording their names to the exclusion of the daughters. It is also undisputed that late Dahau died on 21st September, 1970. One of the contesting respondents, namely, Smt. Rajdei admitted the claim of the petitioners whereas the other contesting ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dayawati and ors. Vs. D.D.C. Baghpat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.2. The issue is very short, as the matter has now to be examined in the light of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 10 th September 2007 in writ petition No. 16761 of 2007. The judgment being precise and which also details the facts necessary for adjudication, is being gainfully reproduced here under:Hon'ble Janardan Sahai,J. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally.The plot in dispute is 2941. It was recorded in the basic year in the name of late Indra Raj father of the petitioners and late Hari Singh father of the respondents 3, 4 and 5. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Indra Raj. The compromise was entered on 31.1.1990 and order of compromise was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 15.2.1990. Against the order dated 15.2.1990 two appeals were filed one by the respondents 3, 4 and 5 and ano...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.P. Mittal S.O Late B.D. Mittal Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard Sri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.2. Petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay medical reimbursement of Rs. 17,146/- and 6,570/- along with interest without insisting on the original medical vouchers and further to conduct a high level enquiry to find out the person responsible for loss of original bill vouchers.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under.4. Petitioner, Dr. S.P. Mittal, retired from the post of Director of Education, U.P. on 31.7.1990 having attained the age of superannuation. After retirement, he settled at Delhi and having exercised his option, which has been accepted by the respondents, he is drawing pension at Delhi through Pay and Accounts Office, U.P. Bhawan, New Delhi. Presently, petitioner is above 78 years of age. He and his wife are chronic patients of Diabetes and Asthma, hence, undergoing regular medical treatment at Delhi. The med...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »