Allahabad Court April 2011 Judgments
Mohan Lal Agrawal and ors. Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohinuddin Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Subhash Vidyarthi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. Controversy in present case relates to a house situate in Mohalla Misterganj, Pargana and Tehsil, Biswan, District Sitapur owned by one Ramdin (now deceased), initially under tenancy of late Sumer Chandra Agarwal, father of petitioners thereafter with them on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-.3. Sri Ramdin filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 for release of the house under the tenancy of the petitioners.4. Petitioners/tenants contested the said application by filing objection on the ground that Ramdin has two sons namely Ram Swaroop and Girdhari and two daughters who are still alive, as such the substitution application moved by respondent nos. 3 & 4 is not maintainable.5. It has also been pleaded by the tenants that one of son of Ramdin namely Sri Ram Swaroop fil...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pradeep Kapoor Vs. Sri Laxmi NaraIn Kapoor and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This is a Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 1048 of 1999 against the order dated 23.5.2009, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.5, Agra in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2008.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 1048 of 2009 on 24 th December, 1999 seeking a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the property no.1/141/1, Khasra No.515, Village Sajepur, Near Delhi Gate, Professors Colony, Hariparbat Ward, Agra. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff formed a Joint Hindu Family with his father, Laxmi Narain Kapoor and his brother Sudheer Kapoor and various properties had been purchased by the Joint Hindu Family. The details of the properties are given in Paragraph-3 of the plaint. There was some dispute between the family members and as such a family settlement was arrived on 7.11.1999 by which various p...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasita Singh and Others Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muz ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf for respondent Nos.2 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed at the inception itself and, therefore, the matter can be disposed of finally as the arguments have been concluded by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned Standing Counsel has also advanced his submission and has supported the impugned order.3. The petition questions the legality of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.4.2011 whereby the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been reversed and the order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside granting full relief to the contesting respondent in relation to their claim as set up before the authorities.4. The dispute in short is as to whether the entry made in the basic year records pertaining to the alleged order of SubDivisional Officer dated 23.9.1982 is genuine or fake. The dispute emanated when...
Tag this Judgment!J.P.Hillori. Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Despite a second opportunity, the Income Tax Department has either not been able to understand or is not in a position to clarify the small issue involved in this Writ Petition. 2. Therefore, for the convenience of the Commissioner Income Tax of the region located at Indore, it is pointed out that the small issue involved is:- (1) Whether the Commissioner Income Tax or any other authority or officer of the Income Tax Department has any power under any law to determine the rate of penal rent or damages for use and occupation in case of unauthorised retention of official accommodation after and beyond the period of entitlement. 3. A subsidiary issue which arises is whether under Fundamental Rule 45 which gives power only to the Central Government to frame Rules, any other authority whether the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Central Board of Direct Taxes (who can not qualify as Central Govt.) can either frame Rules on its own or adopt the Rules framed by the Central Government ...
Tag this Judgment!People'S College of Medical Science and Research Centre. vs. Union of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard. The impugned order dated 23.3.2010 is Annexure-P/39 to the writ petition. It has been passed on behalf of Government of India. The solitary basis for passing that order refusing renewal of the recognition of the petitioner-college is mentioned in the paragraph 2 of that order which says that for the academic year 2009-2010, because of the strict time schedule approved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mridul Dhar and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 2 SCC 65, renewal is being refused. 2. This order has been passed pursuant to the direction of this Court in this writ petition which was issued on 22.9.2009. 3. A Division Bench of this Court while passing the very detailed order dated 22.9.2009 considered the decision of Mridul Dhar (supra) and directed that the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in that decision was being relaxed in this particular case. The High Court further directed in that order that Central Government would consider the report/...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Chandra Datt. vs. the Union of India and Ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. In the said meeting, following decisions were taken :- A. Pursuant to the earlier meeting dated 29.3.2011, a senior technical official from Airport Authority of India, Shri R.K.Shagla, Joint General Manager (Planning) was in Jabalpur on 19 & 20 th April,2011. On these days, joint efforts were made by the technical officials of Airport Authority of India and local revenue authorities to reconcile the revenue map and the map available with Airport Authority of India (Grid Map). During this reconciliation it was found that the two maps could not be reconsiled in their present form. It was for this reason that further steps as were agreed upon in the earlier joint meeting, could not be undertaken. B. During today's joint meeting, it was thus agreed upon that Airport Authority of India would submit an application for demarcation of the existing airport premises within 3 days; and demarcation would be accordingly done by revenue department. This exercise of demarcation of existing lan...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ochiyent Trading Private Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for Union of India and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4, of which the respondent No.4 is the main contesting party. 2. The writ petitioner made a serious allegation in this Writ Petition, saying that in the tender notice the location of the ‘lot’ in question (consisting of movable property to be sold) was mentioned as lying “near Gate Number 4”. In paragraph 6- B of the petition the petitioner also stated that the petitioner and all the prospective bidders were shown that material near the said Gate Number 4. After the tenders were opened in which the respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder and the petitioner was the second highest, the ‘lot’ which was allowed to be lifted by respondent No. 4 was a ‘lot’ different from the ‘lot’ which had been shown to the prospective bidders. The ‘lot’ which has been allowed to be lifted is the one ...
Tag this Judgment!Yagya Narayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This petition for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed by Yagya Narayan Dwivedi, alleging that his niece Ms.Sushma Dwivedi has been illegally detained by respondent no5 Neeraj Shukla. An FIR Annexure P-1 was also lodged in this regard on 23.1.2011, but it is alleged that no action was taken by the Police in this regard. 2. On 9.3.2011 we directed respondent no.3 to produce the corpus of Ms.Sushma Dwivedi before this Court, but the aforesaid order could not be complied with in spite of getting adjournments on 23.3.2011 & 18.4.2011. On 25.4.2011 a request was made by Shri Sidharth Datt, counsel appearing for the girl that Ms.Sushma Dwivedi is present in the Court and this case may be taken up in supplementary list. His prayer was accepted and case was listed in supplementary list on 26.4.2011. On the aforesaid date as the petitioner and his counsel were not present, so the case was adjourned for today and the State was directed to intimate in r...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Pratap Singh Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Parties through their counsel present and heard. 2. Two issues are involved in this case. 3. The first issue ought to have received urgent attention and action by the Government, even without directions from this Court. 4. It has been alleged in this public interest litigation that the disposal of hazardous waste material by the Union Carbide at Bhopal was not proper. This toxic waste is polluting underground water and perhaps the air also, posing a danger to public health to the people of that locality, who have already suffered enough in the gas leak. 5. We are of the opinion that in the rigmarole of committees, sub-committees and task force, somewhere the suffering of people has been forgotten. 6. The suffering people are citizens of the country. It is undoubted responsibility of the Government of India particularly the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Petro Chemicals (to whom the work of disposal of toxic material is said to have been entrusted) ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Goutiya (Kol). Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Shri Surendra Mishra, l earned counsel for the petiti oner. 2. Shri Ashish Shroti , l earned counsel for the respondent/Bank. 3. The peti ti oner by way of this peti ti on under Article 226 of the Constituti on of Indi a seeks di recti on to the respondent to rel ease the tractor beari ng registrati on No. MP- 21/C/9253. 4. Keepi ng i n vi ew the l i mited rel i ef which i s bei ng sought for by the peti ti oner, on 06-04-2011 Shri Ashish Shroti , l earned counsel , who usual l y appear for respondent/Bank was di rected to seek i nstructi ons. 5. Today when the matter i s taken up, it is submi tted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/Bank has rel eased the tractor i n questi on on 29-03-2011. 6. The aforesai d fact has not been di sputed by the l earned counsel for the petiti oner, though the learned counsel for the peti ti oner has rai sed gri evance i n respect of al leged i l l egal ity bei ng commi tted by therespondent/Bank agai nst the all eged sei zu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »