Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1985All314
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The respondent 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in manufacture of block glass and glass bangles in Firozabad (district Agra). The respondents 2 to 6 are partners of this firm. To run the unit the respondents need steam coal -- a controlled commodity which they have to transport by rail from collieries situate in the eastern region of the country. Under the existing scheme, sponsoring is done by the Director of Industries, U.P. (respondent 10) within the specified ceiling limits. This is considered by the Director, Movement (Railways) (the petitioner) in the light of priorities allocated under the Preferential Traffic Schedule formulated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 27-A Railways Act. The Director, Movement accords sanction whereupon allotment of wagons is done from time to time, depending on the availability of coal and coal wagons.2. In October, 1977, the respondents 1 to 6 instituted Original suit No. 298 of 1977 in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All48
Agarwala, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR877]; (2006)IIILLJ276All
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 1997.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Mobile Booking Clerk with effect from 15.1.1981 and continued to the said post till 31.3.1987. The services were terminated from 1.4.1987. The petitioner moved an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and vide its judgment and order dated 22.2,1989 allowed the petition and quashed the order of termination. On the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal the petitioner was reinstated and join his duties on 22.11.1989 but he was not being paid regular pay scale according to the pay scale, which becomes entitled as regular employee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 2 the petitioner filed a reference application under Section 15 Sub-clause 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A case was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3734
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed by the allottee for quashing the order dated 26.4.2001, passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge (Court No. 7) Bareilly passed in Rent Control Revision No. 136 of 1988, Kaleem Ullah Khan v. State of U. P. and Ors., whereby the said revision has been allowed and the order of allotment dated 9.9.1988, passed in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, has been quashed.2. The dispute relates to ground floor portion of house No. 2 Mohalla Aqab Kotwali Gali Maniharan, Bareilly. It. is alleged that the said house belong to waqf alul-aulad and Smt. Rais Begum was its mutwalli. The premises having fallen vacant the petitioner applied for allotment of the same, which was registered as Case No. 28 of 1986 in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly. After inviting objections and affording opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 9.9.1988...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All177
Sinha, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these : The village in dispute is Chhatari in the District of Bulandshahr. It has extensive abadi which is divided into houses and shops. They are occupied by ryots who pay rent only for the shops and not for residential houses. The plaintiff is admittedly its sole zamindar. Shiam Lal, defendant 1 and his two sons Shiva Shankar alias Sallo and Baldeo Shankar alias Ballo, defendants 2 and 3, are his sons. Defendant 4 is the son of the brother of Shiam Lal. The first three defendants occupy a house in the abadi of mauza Chhatari. They do not, however, pay any rent or other dues to the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to Court with the following allegations : The defendants lived in the abadi of mauza Chhatari as ryots and were entitled to use and occupy the said house for residential purpose only, he being the owner of the site of the house. The plaintiff went on to say that the defendants, who were members of a joint Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC628
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri. R. N. Yadav for petitioners and Sri Manish Nigam for caveator-respondent No. 3.2. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.11.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 18), Allahabad, by which he has dismissed Civil Revision No. 249 of 2002, Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Kalloo. The revision was filed against an order rejecting the application 35-ga for recalling the order by which the trial court had accepted the Commissioner's report. It has been dismissed on the ground that after the repeal of U. P. Amendment Act No. 31 of 1978 and Act No. 17 of 1991 to Section 115 of C.P.C. 1908 by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1999, the revision is not maintainable.3. Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 9.10.2002 in Transfer Application No. 36 of 2002, Lallan v. Special Judge, Jaunpur and Ors., by which it has been held that revisions under Section 115, C.P.C., which were instituted before the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All196
A.N. Verma, J.1. A learned single Judge finding that there was a conflict of opinion between various decisions of this Court rendered by Division Benches and single Judges referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench :'Whether a prospective allottee has a right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof after the deletion of the original Rule 13(4) of the Rules under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?'2. This Bench has been constituted for resolving the above controversy. Since only a specific question has been referred to us we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of this case in detail. We will, however, mention the relevant facts as briefly as possible with a view to indicating the circumstances in which the question has arisen in the instant case. The dispute relates to the second storey of a building situate at Haldwani. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of that buil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1989All1
S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether a defence of a tenant can be struck off for non-compliance of Rule 5 of Order XV as added by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, (U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). Hon. B. N. Sapru, J. by his order dated 29th April, 1987 when the revision came up for hearing before him, directed that the papers of the case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to consider the following questions : --1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ganpat Giri v. II Addl. District Judge, AIR 1986 SC 589 the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the C.P. C. stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the Central Act? 2. Whether the Central Amendments having come into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977 repealed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All703
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants are being prosecuted under Section 120B, I. P. C. & Rules 81(4) & 121, Defence of India Rules, for entering into a conspiracy & infringing the provisions of the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order of 1942. They are said to have committed the offence in the years 1943 to 1945. The offence remained under investigation for a long period & the prosecution was launched against them on 16-1-1950. On 19-4-1950 they pressed before the trial Ct. that their prosecution could not be continued for various reasons, the most important being that the Defence of India Act & Rules have expired & the Govt. of India Act, 1935 has been repealed by the Const. The trial Ct. held that there was no bar to the continuance of the prosecution & refused their request to quash the proceedings. They went up in revision against this order to the Ses. J. The learned Sess. J. contented himself with pouring encomia on the trial Ct. for its elaborate order & refused to do anything in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1975All154
ORDERK.N. Singh, J. 1. Messrs. Jagat Nath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava made applications before the State Transport Authority, Luck-now, for grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. The State Transport Authority dismissed all the three applications mainly on the ground that the Meerut-Delhi was a notified route under the Motor Vehicles Act and as such no stage carriage permit could legally be granted to the said applicants. The order of the State Transport Authority was challenged in appeal by Jagannath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). By its order dated 27th February, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the three appeals and set aside the order of the State Transport Authority, it further directed the State Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits to each of the three appellants. The Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!