Allahabad Court March 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.
Ambrish and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge Lko. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.01.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow/Appellate Authority allowing appeal filed by tenant/respondent, consequently rejecting petitioner's release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the the U.P. Act 13 of 1972). 3. In the instant case, controversy relates to shop measuring 10' X 20' situated at 488/66, Daliganj, Lucknow. On 23 October, 1997, petitioners/landlords moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (Annexure-2), case as set up by the petitioners that the shop has been let out on monthly rent of Rs. 85/- as per written agreement dated 01.10.1965 by their father to Sri Chunni Lal Kapoor/tenant, after his death, opposite...
Dr. Dharam Bir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the current pension and arrear of pension alongwith interest to the petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 25.10.2010 filed by petitioner (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). c. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. d. To award the cost of the present case.3. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Anaesthetist in District Hospital, Bulandshahar, by order dated 23.3.1973 passed by the State Government. Thereafter vide order dated 20.6.1978...
Dr. Shaila at Dr. Shehla Yusuf and Others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. This is a transfer application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for transfer of the Criminal Case No. 1224 of 2008, State v Mohd. Yusuf arising out of Crime No. 703 of 2007, P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/I-Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghaziabad to any other district.2. Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Mr. Manish Tiwary submitted that the applicants are the permanent residents of district Lucknow and they are required to appear in the court concerned at Ghaziabad. It was further submitted that respondent no. 2 is the husband of applicant no. 1 who has concocted the present case to build up a pressure on the applicants for compromising the criminal cases filed by applicant no. 1 in district Lucknow. Mr. Tiwary further submitted that it would be highly inconvenient for the applicants to go to Ghaziabad and contest ...
Sri Hans Kumar Vs. Madan Gopal Rastogi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the order and judgment dated 5.3.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut in P.A. Case No. 08 of 2005, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing of the aforesaid order and also a writ of mandamus commanding the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut to implead the petitioner as party to the proceedings and to hear and decide the P. A. Case No. 08 of 2005 in accordance with law. 2. The facts averred by the petitioner in the writ petition are that he along with respondents no. 1 to 4 are the co-owner and landlord of Shop No. 439 (part of building no. 96), Sarrafa Bazar, Meerut. Shyam Saran, respondent no. 5 is the tenant in the said shop ; that Shop No. 439 along with other Shops 435 to 438 were the property of one Smt. Sharbati Devi, W/O Sri Budh Prakash and were pur...
Shashi Kant Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Two appellants Shashi Kant Singh(A1) and Pintoo @ Amrendra Singh (A2) have challenged their conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and imposed sentence there for 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/-, the default sentence being one year further R.I. and appellant Shashi Kant Singh has also questioned correctness of his conviction under Section 3/25 Arms Act with imposed sentence of two years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, the default sentence in lieu of payment of fine being six months further R.I. both convictions and sentences imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Ist, Ghazipur in the impugned judgement and order dated 14.11.2008 passed in S.T. No.47 of 2007, State Shashi kant Singh and others relating to Crime No.642 of 2006 and connected S.T. No.48 of 2007, State v. Shashi Kant Singh, relating to Crime No.661 of 2006 in the impugned judgement and order.2. Briefly narrated prosecution allegations against the appellants are that on 31.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. A1 and A2 accompanied ...
Parag Vs. A.D.M., City, D.D.C., Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This petition questions the correctness of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.11.2009, whereby it has been held that the sale-deeds executed in favour of the contesting respondents by the guardian of the petitioner during his minority were valid and, therefore, the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation in favour of the petitioner were set aside, and the entries made in favour of the contesting respondent in the basic year of the revenue records were maintained.2. In order to understand the controversy, the following pedigree is extracted for reference:- Triveni | _________________ | | Jamuna Achhaiber- Murati (wife) _____________ I | | Lal Bihari Vrindawan Balbhadra | Parag3. The petitioner Parag is the grand son of Achhaiber and son Lal Bihari. Lal Bihari the petitioner's father predeceased his father, after the birth of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was looked after by his grant mother Smt. Mura...
Nagina and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by 9 tenure holders claiming themselves to be the recorded tenure holders of the disputed plots which is alleged to have been declared as surplus under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act.2. The contention raised is that the land in question had been settled in favour of the petitioners by the erstwhile Zamindars of the land and by virtue of such settlement, they have become Seerdars and again Bhumindhars i.e. tenure holders in their own right under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by operation of law.3. The petitioners also contend that their names were recorded in the revenue records and for that they have relied upon the extract of Khatauni between 1366-1368 Fasli and 1372-1374 Fasli. They also contend that the land has been allegedly declared surplus in the hands of such persons, who are alleged to be the tenure holders whereas the correct facts are that the said land has already been settled in favour of the pe...
Vinesh JaIn Vs. Committee of Management and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This special appeal has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 29.10.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62266 of 2010, Committee of Management & Others v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the Joint Director (Education) concerned to appoint an authorized controller to manage the affairs of the institution and to direct him to hold election under his supervision. 2. The case of the opposite parties-petitioners is that there is a Society in the name and style of Jain School Committee (Registered), Muzaffar Nagar (for short the Society) which is duly registered and it runs various educational institutions, including Jain Inter College (Boys), Muzaffar Nagar (for short the institution). The last election of the Committee of Management of the institution was held in the year 2007 and its term expired on 11.6.2010.3. Therefore, Mr.Vinod Jain, Manager of the Commit...
MS Ashraya Lauh Kala Utpadan Kendra Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry., Fi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. The petitioner took Term Loan as well as Cash Credit Facility from the respondent no.4-State Bank of India for installing SSI Unit.2. The petitioner defaulted in respect of the aforesaid Loan and Facility. Consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Recovery Citation dated 26.2.2011 has been issued in this regard. Copy of the Citation dated 26.2.2011 has been filed as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. As per the said Citation, an amount of Rs. 5,02,836/- plus other charges is due from the petitioner.3. Counter Affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the respondent no.4-State Bank of India. 4. Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not propose to file any Rejoinder Affidavit. 5. As per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the said Counter Affidavit, the said loan was given under the State Sponsored Scheme, and accordingly, the Recovery Certificate dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure CA-3 to the Counte...
Sardar Gurtahal Singh Vs. Anand Singh Jagdhari and 8 ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Heard Sri Munawar Sultan learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.V. Chaudhary for the opposite parties.2. This second appeal was dismissed in default on 9.10.2009. The appellant moved an application for its restoration on 13.1.2010 with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. He has explained the reasons for moving the application with delay. Objection was invited from Sri P.V. Chaudhary on application for condonation of delay. Sri Chaudhary has raised objection that the delay should not be condoned.3. Sri P.V. Chaudhary has raised another legal objection that in second appeal application for restoration can only be moved under Order 41 Rule 19. It reads as follows :" 19. Re-admission of appeal dismissed for default.- Where an appeal is dismissed under rule 11, sub-rule (2) or rule 17, the appellant may apply to the Appellate Court for the re-admission of the appeal; and , where it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »