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!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC992
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.1. The short basic issue in all these appeals is whether the Aligarh Muslim University is a minority Institution. The point arises because suddenly some eighty five years after incorporation, they chose for the first time to reserve a Muslim quota, by way of a 50% reservation of post-graduate course seats meant for qualified MBBS doctors. The judgment under appeal before us has been delivered by an Hon'ble Single Judge of our Court on the 4th of October, 2005. Both sides, to be more accurate, all parties, felt aggrieved, and came up in appeal. The appeals will all be disposed of by this common order.2. On the one side, who spoke first were, the Aligarh Muslim University, represented by Mr. S.S. Ray, leading Dr. Dhawan, the Union of India and the learned Attorney General on whose behalf Mr. Gopal Subramaniam addressed us, two individuals one of whom is a member of the Court of the University, which is its administrative body, the Minority Commission whose case was put...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1309
ORDER1. For the reasons recorded separately this Full Bench unanimously holds that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions as the case may be, to consider the bail application; time Schedule for concluding bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, decision rendered in Dr. Hidavat Hussain Khan v. State of U.P., (1992 Crl. LJ 3534) is overruled and the decision rendere.d in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1992, Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Ors. is upheld.2. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners are arrested and brought before the competent Court or voluntarily surrender before the competent Court, and apply for bail, their bail applications will be decided by the competent Court as expediously as possible in accordance with law.B.M. Lal, J.(2A) Following question is to be answered by this Full Bench :'Whether while rejecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC230
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Since similar and common controversy is involved in these two writ petitions, both the writ petitions are being decided by this one and common judgment.2. Heard Sarvasri G.K. Singh and V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record.3. Under challenge in these two petitions is an order of dismissal passed on 31st July, 2004 dismissing the petitioners from service and the other subsequent orders passed on 30th May, 2005 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 28.12.2005 by which the petitioner's revision was dismissed.4. It emerges from the record that the petitioners, who were working as Constables in 35 Battalion in Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as the P.A.C.), were posted on security duty of Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya, Faizabad with other P.A.C. personnel. On 9th April, 2003, they were on the duty of the Watch Towers to keep a watch on the disputed premises. One S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC273
Palok Basu and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.1. The petitioners in each case were highest bidders in the auction which held on different dates relating to a forest produce known as resin, the disposal of which is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act. 1976. According to the facts emerging in all these petitions, the issue raised is whether the petitioners can be asked to pay the difference between the price which they had bid and not paid for resin and the subsequent sale price which was obtained by the Forest Department for the same produce, now being recovered as arrears of land revenue.2. When the writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court called for counter-affidavits and passed an interim order staying the recovery of the amount through the citations from the petitioners. In response to the notices Issued, the State of U. P. and its officials of the Forest Department have filed a counter-affidavit in some of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1962]13STC923(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The main point raised in this petition is a challenge to the validity of the U. P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act (XV of 1958) which validated the notification ST 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, issued under the authority of Section 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, by reason of which the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by the order impugned in this writ petition. The validity of the Act has been put beyond doubt by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and Anr. [1961] 12 S.T.C. 429. In view of this decision the learned counsel is not in a position to press the main point.3. A subsidiary point taken by him is that as mentioned in grounds Nos. (vii), (xi) and (xii) of the grounds of the petition. This point has been urged by him somewhat as follows :-By reason of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Indian Coinage Act, 1906, as amended by the Indian Coinage (Amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1630
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord respondent No. 3 R.N. Shukla since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed suit for eviction against tenant Gajadhar Prasad who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below and was survived by petitioner and pro forma respondents No. 4 to 6. The suit was Hied before Munsif City, Kanpur in the form of O.S No. 508 of 1969. The suit was later on transferred to the Court of IV Additional Munsif, Kanpur by District Judge through order-dated 28.5.1970. After coming into force of U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972, District Judge transferred the suit to the Court of Additional JSCC, Kanpur who decreed the same on 7.11.1973. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Revision No. 223 of 1973 was filed. II Additional District Judge, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 17.1.1976, allowed the revision only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of Additional JSCC. U.P. Civil Law...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ614
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether more than one F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents' is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 29.07.2008, passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Case No. 900 of 2007 (Parvez Parwaz v. Yogi Aditya Nath and Ors.) has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as 'the applicant') under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C'.), has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no justification to get the second FIR registered regarding the same incidents.3. The facts emerging from the record, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Parvez Parwaz moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur on 16.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!