Allahabad Court April 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.
Smt.Sushma Tiwari and ors Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. In this batch of writ appeals, challenge is to an order dated 18.7.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge by which writ petitions preferred against an order dated 25.3.2006 were dismissed. The appellants had also challenged an order dated 22.7.2006, which was in consequence to order 25.3.2006, directing recovery of excess amount paid to the appellants/petitioners, in installment of Rs.2000/- per month from the salary of the petitioners. As the learned Single Judge found no merit in the matter against the order dated 25.3.2006, writ petitions were also dismissed against the order dated 22.7.2006. 2. In nut-shell, the dispute in all the matters is whether the appellants who are in the ministerial cadre of Police Department on various posts were entitled for the same pay-scale which other employees of the same department in the executive cadre were getting. Earlier by an order dated 28.8.2000, the State government in compliance of various orders issued by the M.P. State Administrative T...
Ms. Sweta Traders. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. Challenge put forth in this petition is to an order dated 01-09-2005 passed by District Magistrate under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'). It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon;[(2010) 8 SCC 110], it has been observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 42 that a remedy by way of an appeal under section 17 of the Act of 2002 can be availed even against an order passed under section 14. It was held in Satyavati Tandon(supra):- "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) WP 271.06 or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. ...
Kuber. Vs. Jamuna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 29.6.2010 in W.P.No.7752/10 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners was decided by an order which reads thus:- “29.6.2010 Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is directed against an order dated 20 th May, 2010- passed by 3 rd Civil Judge Class-II, Waidhan, distt. Sidhi in Civil Suit No.60-A/98 by which the petitioners' right to adduce the evidence was closed. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 20 th May, 2010 and order dated 19.3.2010 in an appeal, in case such exigency arises to the petitioners. The prayer is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs.” 2. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed by the petiti...
Mrs. Vandana GuptA. Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned demand made by the respondent no.2 i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide allotment letter, being annexure -1 to the writ petition, at the rate of Rs.43,560/- per square meter and further sought for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to issue a revised allotment letter at the rate of Rs.39,600/- per square meter, as it was done in the case of other successful allottees of the scheme. 3. According to the petitioner, she was found successful in a draw of lots held on 08 th November, 2008 in respect of the plot, being Plot No. G-48, Sector-44, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar). However, in spite of repeated requests no allotment letter was issued to her.4. Ultimately, on 30 th September, 2010 such allotment letter was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.43,560/- per square meter though, according to the petitioner, in the said locality i.e. Sector 44 price of land ...
Tejendra Pal Singh Vs. Consolidation Commissioner and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 28th March, 2011, annexure-10 to the writ petition. However, at the time of arguments, the prayer has been modified to the extent that the revision itself be transferred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned for decision and in that event, the petitioner would pray for a relief only to that extent.3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that the Director of Consolidation has delegated powers to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad to hear and decide the matters under Section 48 of the Act pertaining to District Etah as well. 4. This matter had been adjourned to be taken up after lunch calling upon the learned Standing Counsel to verify the aforesaid averments contained in the supplementary affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel has produced a fax co...
Mahesh Chandra Tiwar Vs. K.S.Dixit and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Special Judge ( E.C. Act ), Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 81 of 2006, Mahesh Chandra Tiwari versus Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others.3. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the shop in dispute. 4. The facts in brief are that the shop in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar/Additional City Magistrate, Vth vide order dated 20.10.1981. Respondent no.1, K.S. Dixit r/o House No. 105/282-A, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar moved an application for allotment of the shop in dispute before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer /Additional City Magistrate, Vth Kanpur Nagar interalia that tenant-petitioner has violated the terms of the allotment by rent...
Anil Kr. Sethi Vs. Mahendra Singh Gupta and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.2. This is tenant writ petition. He seeks quashing of the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut dated 2 nd February, 2006 in Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 and that passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 1 st March, 2011, in S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2006.3. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:4. The land-lord, late Mahendra Singh Gupta instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the allegation that the premises in question is not covered by the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the tenancy had been validly terminated under notice dated 31 st August, 1996. After the parties exchanged their pleadings, the Judge, Small Causes framed following four issues for determination:(a) Whether the provision of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1...
Mahajeet Vs. St at E of U. P. and Anot Her
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K.N. Bajpai, learned AGA in opposition.2. Revisionist Mahajeet is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 3, Mathura in F.R. Case No. 255/XI of 2009 (Udal Khan v. Mahajeet), by which order he has been summoned by the Magistrate to stand trial under Sections 307/504 I.P.C., P.S. Baldevo, District Mathura. Challenge in this revision is also to the earlier order dated 2.4.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura in criminal revision no. 192 of 2004 (Udal Khan v. State of U.P.), by which Sessions Judge, Mathura has allowed the revision filed by the informant and had remanded the case back to A.C.J.M., Court No. 3, Mathura for passing a fresh order after setting aside the order dated 14.1.2004 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Mathura in relation to crime no. 465 of 2002. By the order dated 14.1.2004, final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid crime had been accepted b...
M/S. JaIn Construction Comp. Vs. Moradabad Development Authority, Mora ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Petitioner herein is a registered company. By means of this petition, it has mainly prayed for direction upon the respondents to release the residue payment of the petitioner out of contractual work without deducting 1% cess. 2. Briefly stated facts according to the petitioner are that on 20 th October, 2008 the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent-Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad for construction of flats under Manyavar Kanshiram Awas Yojna within six months i.e. by 05 th April, 2009. The petitioners own case is that it had completed the aforesaid construction work by 20 th October, 2009 and the same was verified by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad. On 27 th January, 2010 a circular was issued by the concerned Labour Commissioner for deduction of 1% cess from the payments of all the projects of building and other construction works under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »