Court : Allahabad
1. The borrower and the guarantors of the financial assistance granted by the State Bank of India have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 2nd April, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by which the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kotak Mahindra Bank') for its substitution in place of the State Bank of India in the recovery certificate on the basis of the assignment deed dated 29th March, 2006 has been allowed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 11th May, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been dismissed. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that petitioner no.3- M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in fabrication and manufacturing work, was granted financial assistance by the State Bank of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21.5.2011 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Court no. 2, Ghaziabad in O.S. no. 859 of 2006 whereby issue no. 8 regarding payment of court-fee has been decided against the appellant and she has been directed to pay ad voleram court-fee on relief-A at Rs. 40.0 lacs. Facts germane to the appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed aforesaid suit for declaration that the will dated 16.7.2004 (the 2004-Will) is void, ineffective and had been executed without free will of Smt. Pushp Kirti Sharma and the plaintiff is entitled to get suit property according to will dated 17.1.1991 (the 1991-Will) and the declaration of the Court be intimated to Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff further sought relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff's possession over house no. KK-160, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad and she be restrained from alienating the house on the basis of the 2004-Will. By way of ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, Act) against the impugned award dated 19.5.2012, passed in Motor Accident Claims case No.435 of 2007. 2. THE claimant Ram Ratan had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 on account of injuries sustained in an accident on 25.7.2007 while driving a bus bearing No.UP-32-Z-1877. The accident was alleged to have caused by UPSRTC Bus No.U.P.-40-D-4801 on 25.7.2006 when the claimant was driving the bus and reached near the forest barrier on Sitapur Road, P.S. Maniyao, Lucknow. Bus No.U.P.-40- D-4801 coming from reverse direction being driven rashly and negligently hit the claimant's bus No.UP-32-Z-1877. In consequence thereof, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. The claimant was driving private bus as its driver carrying passengers from Lucknow to Azmer Sharif. On account of injuries caused in the said accide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. THIS petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 12.2.1992 and 26.9.1988 passed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 respectively. The facts in short giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner purchased a cold storage in district Barabanki in the court auction and requisite deposit was made by the petitioner. The Civil Judge, Barabanki issued a sale certificate on 14.5.1987. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount as required under law in the court. The matter was referred to the Collector by Sub-registrar. A show because notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed objection to the same alleging therein that the stamp duty has already been paid in accordance with the provisions of law and determination of stamp duty by the Sub-registrar was illegal. It was further alleged that the Sub-registrar had no jurisdiction to make any objection in respect of the sale made in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Shabihul Hasnain, J. This is an appeal from order under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1957 read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, District Sultanpur in Regular Case No. 687 of 2010 ( Smt. Rekha Devi vs. Abhishekh Misra) wherein the appeal has been dismissed. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree on a number of grounds but the main ground taken by the appellant is that the suit has been dismissed despite 'No objection' from the husband opposite party. The learned court below was of the opinion that suit for divorce could not have been allowed under the provision in which it was filed. The learned court below was of the view that on the grounds mentioned in the suit a decree on the basis of mutual consent could not have been issued. It was observed that for this purpose a regular suit under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act should have been i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2012CrLJ3156
Vinod Prasad, J. In these two connected appeals, a family consisting of father Dhan Singh (A-1), mother Smt. Makkhan (A-2) and their son Akhilesh Kumar (A-3), who were in-laws and husband of Geeta(deceased), have challenged their conviction under Section 304-B (2), 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act and imposed sentences of ten years R.I. for the first charge, two years R.I. with Rs. 5000/- fine, on each of the appellants and in default of payment thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment, for the second charge, and one year R.I. with fine of 2500/=, the default sentence being two months further R.I., for the last charge imposed by Additional Session’s Judge, court no.2, Jhansi in S.T. No.85 of 2004, State vs. Dhan Singh and others, relating to Police Station Baruwa Sagar, district Jhansi vide impugned judgement and order dated 23.3.2005. Charges against the appellants, as was levelled and scribed by the informant Gunchi Lal (P.W.1), father of the deceased Geeta, in his written F....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2012(3)LLN158
1. In the present case, petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 25.03.2011 issued by the Works Manager of the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad, informing the petitioner that he would attain the age of superannuation on completing the age of 58 years. The facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad is an industrial establishment in the Irrigation Department of the State Government, which is under the control and supervision of the Works Manager of the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad. The petitioner was working continuously in the said workshop as Moulder since 01.01.1987 as daily wager. On 15.03.1991 the Chief Engineer, Procurement and Material Management, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow sanctioned 93 posts in different trades, prescribing their pay scales, qualification and experience etc. Thereafter Selection Committee was constituted and the Superinte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted with an object to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue. Once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of initial defect in the instrument. The sole object of Stamp Act under its various provisions is to require the parties concerned to set forth correct market value of the property at which the transaction has taken place so that appropriate duty in accordance with the Act is paid by them to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty. It also mandates that while setting forth the correct market value of the property in dispute the competent authority must not apply their mind in a fact fashion and in a haphazard way. 2. The facts shorn of details are that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad dated 9.11.2011. The brief facts of the case are that a marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 on 7.7.1997. Unfortunately, differences arose between them and a suit being Suit No. 181 fo 2009 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) was filed by the wife-petitioner no.2 before the Family Court, Allahabad, seeking dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty by the husband and constant demand of dowry. Simultaneously, other cases were also filed under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 509 IPC and also under Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations and the counter allegations ensued and an FIR was also lodged against the husband-petitioner no.1, which led to filing of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR being Application No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Ashok Bhushan, J. Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land ...
Tag this Judgment!