Court : Allahabad
B. Amit Sthalekar,J. This is a writ petition at the behest of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.06 of 2011, Smt. Suraksha Devi Vs. Sunil Kumar Kataria. The genesis of the case may be briefly encapsulated. The respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) against the petitioner being P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011 for release of the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant file his written statement alleging that the application has been filed with a mala fide motive inasmuch as the respondent had several shop properties in Bijnor itself and therefore, there was no bonafide need for the shop in question. In the written statement, it was further alleged that earlier also the respondent had filed a similar P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Anil Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. 2. In this Writ u/s 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, (S.C. and S.T. Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 145 of 2013 and order dated 11.9.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Application no. 949 of 2013 State Vs. Iqbal and orders. It has been further prayed that the FIR dated 29.6.2012 being case crime no. 422 of 2012 u/s 279, 429, 289, 290 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 16C, 43(2), 48-A and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, P.S. Sector-39 Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar be quashed and a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the elephant with chip no. 958000000/522960 taken in possession by respondent no. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Ashok Bhushan, J. This writ petition raises an important issue as to whether after the repeal of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,1976") by The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Repeal Act,1999") an appeal challenging the order of the competent authority dated 31/3/1997, declaring surplus vacant land can be filed under Section 33 of the Act, 1976. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13/8/2012, passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing the Appeal No.68/2011 filed by the respondent against the order dated 31/3/1997, of the competent authority under the Act, 1976 by which 48266.42 Square Metres was declared as surplus vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are: Proceedings under the Act, 1976 were initiated by issuing a notice dated 27/12/1996 under Section 6(2) to the tenure holder Jagdish Chandra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Ashok Bhushan, J. This bunch of writ petitions challenge the Rate Circular issued by the Railway Board providing for realisation of penal demurrage/wharfage charges. In Writ Petition No.11168 of 2011, pleadings are complete, which writ petition is being treated as the leading writ petition. Reference of facts and pleadings in Writ Petition No.11168/2011, shall be sufficient for deciding all the writ petitions. Brief facts of the case are:The petitioners are Private Limited proprietorship concern/partnership concern involved in the trading of coal and are importing coal from outside the State of U.P. through railway wagons. Section 30 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1989") authorises the Railway Board to notify rates of demurrage and wharfage from time to time and to revise the same. Rates Circular No.74 of 2005 dated 19/12/2005, was issued by the Railway Board on the subject "Free time and rates of demurrage, wharfage and stacking charges". Paragraph 3.3 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate assisted by Sri Sheo Sagar Singh, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Following two questions were formulated by this Court, which need adjudication : A. Whether the lower appellate court could have ignored the family settlement which was reduced in writing on 29.5.1977 only because it was not registered in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119 ? B. When a family settlement is said to have acted upon so as to show that parties were ad idem, can it be disregarded and dislodged on its being unregistered ? 3. Original Suit No.611 of 1992 was instituted by Krishna Gopal against Raj Gopal for partition. The case set up by plaintiff was that he and defendant, both, were sons of Late Mangelal Sharma, and members of Joint Hindu Family, of which late Mangelal Sharma was Karta. He (Mangelal Sharma) died abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. This reference has arisen out of a conflict having been noticed by a learned Single Judge between the division bench judgment in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. Hari Krishna Singh and others Special Appeal No. 30 of 2011 decided on 19th January, 2011 at Lucknow that has partly disapproved the ratio of the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 30.11.2009 reported in 2009 (10) ADJ Pg. 585, and the decision delivered by another division bench at Allahabad in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others Special Appeal No. 146 of 2010 decided on 21st January, 2011 that arose out of the Single Judge judgment in the case of Raja Ram (supra), and has upheld the same reported in 2011 (3) ADJ Pg. 340. The judgment in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) was rendered at Lucknow two days earlier to the judgment in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad (su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Heard Sri O.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Jitendra Nayak appearing on behalf of the Union of India. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Jang Bahadur Yadav with a prayer 1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order detention dated 4.11.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, District Allahabad vide order no. 9/2011 N.S.A./11 under section 3(2) of N.S.A. Act as well as approval of detention passed by the Registrar Advisory Board U.P. Lucknow dated 28.12.2011 as well as approval of Central Government dated 1.12.2011. 2. to issue a writ Habeas Corpus in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no.3 to release the petitioner from Jail forthwith. 3. to issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and to which petitioner is entitled in law. 4. to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dinesh Gupta, J. 1. This First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Ballia in Original Suit No. 315 of 2001 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Sunita Devi) decided on 06.09.2002 decreeing the suit of the petitioner for the relief of divorce. 2. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that original suit no. 315 of 2001 was filed by respondent-petitioner (hereinafter called the respondent) against Savita Devi opposite party-appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) for the relief of declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void. This petition was based on the allegation that the respondent belonged to District Ballia and is from a very reputed family having agricultural land, other business establishment, shops etc. The respondent has graduated from Allahabad University in May, 2000. The appellant's father came to the house of the respondent for the purpose of settling marriage of the appellant with the respondent and the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. THE petitioner is society registered under the Socieities Registration Act with the Registrar of Societies, U.P. vide Registration Certificate No.375/2001-02 dated 13.7.2001 valid upto 31.7.2006. The certificate was renewed on 19.12.2006 for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 31.7.2006. The society is running an educational institution by the name of C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College at Kaimganj, Distt. Farrukhabad for students from Class-6 to Class-12 recognised by the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. 2. THE society is registered with Income Tax Department as an association of persons with PAN No.AAAAC1150G and has been granted a registration certificate under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The society is regularly assessed to 'Nil' income by the Assessing Authority from 2003-04 to 2007-08. The returns filed by the society have been accepted regularly under Section 143 (1) of the Act. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2011 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. THIS writ petition has been filed with annexures in Hindi. The interim order of a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 665 of 2007 dated 24th of July, 2012 and another interim order of a Division Bench dated 5th October, 2012 in writ petition No. 51172 of 2012 has been circulated by the Registrar General under the orders of the Division Bench and accordingly the aforesaid two orders have been placed before this Court which are quoted hereinunder for ready reference:- "Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J. Counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad be taken on record. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that all the original records and certified copies regarding the appointment in a sealed cover have been sent to the C.B.C.I.D. for providing necessary information in the matter. Let the report be called from the Investigating Agency, i.e., C.B.C.I.C. indicating progress in the investigation. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State without provid...
Tag this Judgment!