Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1533
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, quashing of the impugned award dated 20.2.1997 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.3. The case of the petitioner U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Board), in brief, is that it was constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Respondent No. 2, Mani Ram, was employed in the petitioner-Board. His date of birth was recorded in his service record as 1.3.1931. He retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e.; 58 years from the post of High Pressure Welder. A certificate dated 24.10.1997 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Department of Supply through the competent authority/Director, National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta, containing the signatures of respondent Mani Ram countersigned by the Chief Inspector of Boil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3411
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This Is tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1991, -passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad In S.C.C. Suit No. 192 of 1980. The trial court has decreed the suit for eviction of the applicants and also for recovery of water taxes, arrears of rent and damages etc.2. The plaintiff landlord (opposite party) Instituted the suit on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff Is landlord and owner of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with their back galleries situate In premises No. 17/33A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad, on a monthly rent of Rs. 720 besides water taxes payable as part of rent at the rate of 14 per cent wherein the defendants No. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business under the name and style of 'Mercury'. The shops were let out for the purposes of opening of dry cleaner shop. The defendants are in arrears of rent since January, 1980 and the tenancy has been terminated by se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Tag this Judgment!