Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(1992)DMC374
B.L. Yadav, J.1. The defendant-appellant, has filed the present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and order dated 18.5 90 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. CaseNo. 25/89 rejecting her restoration application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short the Act) under Article 123 of the Act the period of limitation to set aside an ex-parte decree was 30 days from the date of decree, or where summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The application for restoration was filed by the appellant (the wife) against the ex-parte decree dated 30.5.89 passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial case No. 65 of 1988 (Mahesh Sharma v. Smt. Deep Mala Sharma) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting ex-parte decree for divorce in favour of the respondent (the husband) This restoration application was filed under order 9 rule 13 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2006All259; 2006(3)AWC2823
Ajoy Nath Ray and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.1. This is an special appeal from a four line interim order, dated the 14th of February, 2006, whereby the directions for affidavits were given but the interim order, which was subsisting in aid of the writ petition until then was not extended.2. The appellant come up before us saying that grant of interim order of a substantial nature makes a judgment of an Hon'ble Single judge appealable as much as the withholding of such an interim order by an Hon'ble Single Judge.3. However, another point of appealability is also taken by Mr. Shashi Nandan on behalf of his client, whom we shall call the later bidders. 4. The facts are basically these. A large piece of trust properties was allegedly agreed to be sold by the trustees of a certain trust in Kanpur to the clients of Mr. Ravi Kant, whom we shall call the first offerors. According to them the property was agreed to be sold to them for Rs. 1.61 crore and a banker's cheque of Rs. 85 lac was paid and encas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1987All338
ORDERB.D. Agarwal, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, dated 23rd Sept., 1982.2. The plaintiff brought a suit giving rise to this revision in the Court of the District Judge, Ghaziabad, contending that, the plaintiff holds patent No. 140164, dated Jan.31, 1974, and that the plaintiff is recorded in the Register of Patents on Nov. 21 1980, as such. There is allegedly infringement of the patent from the side of the defence and hence the relief sought in the suit is permanent injunction besides requiring the defendant to render account to the plaintiff of profits made by the defendant by using a machine containing the plaintiffs invention. The amount thus found due is also sought to be recovered. In defence it is asserted that there is no valid patent held as such by the plaintiff and no relief can be had on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint Subsequent to the defence being put in, there was an application filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All620a; 157Ind.Cas.347
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to this Full Bench, for an expression of opinion by a Division Bench before which a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a Single Judge of this Court dismissing an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, came up for hearing. On 2nd May 1932, the appellant filed an application in this Court before, a Single Judge for leave to appeal in forma pauperism and that application, as required by Order 44, Rule 1 was accompanied by a memorandum of appeal containing the grounds of objections and also a prayer for the appeal being allowed. No court-fee was, of course, at that time paid on the memorandum of appeal. Both the application and the memorandum of appeal were received by the learned Judge and registered as a Miscellaneous Case, and were later on put up again before him on 9th May 1932 with an office report that the application was beyond time. On that date the applicant was not present in the Court room and her application for lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All1
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 3rd of April 1917, and presented for registration on the 24th of April 1917. The suit was contested mainly by Defendant No. 2 who held a mortgage, dated the 8th of April 1917, and presented for registration on the 11th of April 1917. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff's mortgage deed had been antedated and was in fact subsequent to the defendant's mortgage. This point has been conclusively found against the defendant. He further denied the completion and validity of the document. The Court of first instance in a very summary judgment decreed the claim. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's mortgage-deed was defective for want of proper attestation. He held that it was executed in the presence of only one witness Baldeo at one place, and then it was brought to the Court compound where it was attested by the second witness Kamla. Kamla ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All29
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that that suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233, (k), Land Revenue Act. The facts are that the plaintiffs sued for possession of seven-eighths of certain zamindari property in the possession of Mt. Gurdei, defendant 2 claiming that plaintiffs and defendant 3, Ram Naik, are entitled to the whole of this property. The property in suit belonged to one Harnath, who was of the family of the plaintiffs, and it has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that on the death of Harnath his son Maharaj Kishor was a leper to such an extent that he was disqualified from inheriting the property of his father. Maharaj Kishor nevertheless was entered for the property after the death of his father and died very shortly afterwards, and left a widow, Mt. Ram Peary, defendant 1. The death of Harnath took place wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)ESC2378
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. In Vinod Kumar Rai v. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad, 20O2 (2) ESC 143 (All), a Division Bench of this Court held that the Full Court of the Allahabad High Court in its resolutions dated 17.3.1993 and 7.3.1998 while approving the draft Rules for making U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, had given consent for reservation in favour of physically disabled persons in recruitment to the judicial service, and thus there is 3% reservation in favour of physically disabled persons in accordance with U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Disabled, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993). The Division Bench further held that this reservation for physically disabled persons must be read harmoniously with Rule 20 of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, which provides that no person should be appointed as member of the service unless he be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1997]89CompCas729(All)
1. Shri Satish Chaturvedi appears for the appellant and Shri P. K. Singhal appears for the respondent. They are heard.2. This is a first appeal from the order dated September 20, 1995, whereby the trial court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, A. S. Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. restraining the U. P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') from executing the notice issued under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under :The respondent-plaintiff, A. S. Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd., has brought an action against the appellant-Corporation for permanent injunction seeking relief that the appellant-Corporation be restrained from executing the notice under Section 29 of the Act for making any payment of the loan amount or in lieu thereof d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1998All29; II(1997)DMC383
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. An application for vacating the stay order was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. The said application was listed for orders on 20th March 1997. Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the opposite party, took a preliminary objection. He contended that under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an appeal lies against the impugned order before the learned District Judge. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. A. Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, disputed the said contention on various grounds. Since the hearing could not be completed the matter was adjourned till 9th of April 1997. On the next date, it was further adjourned till 12th May 1997. On 25th April 1997, both the learned counsel pointed out that the matter was fixed on 24th April, 1997 but by mistake the date was noted as 12th May, 1997 in the order dated 9th April, 1997. Accordingly the matter was fixed on 9th May, 1997 instead of 12th May, 1997 by an order dated 25th Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All196
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal was filed under S. 10 of the Letters Patent against an order of a learned single Judge dismissing an application Under Section 276 of Act, XXXIX [39] of 1925. One Ram Dutt Joshi died on llth of March 1943, leaving a will dated 14th January 1943. The application by the Benares Hindu University asked for a grant of letters of administration in the right of its being a universal legatee. The application was contested by Gauri Dutt Joshi, father of the testator, who claimed that the will was not validly executed and, further, that the applicant, the Benares Hindu University, is an association of individuals and is not entitled to get letters of administration.2. The learned single Judge held on the fasts in favour of the applicant but dismissed the application as he came to the conclusion that the Benares Hindu University was an association of individuals and letters of administration could not, therefore, be granted in its favour. The applicant has filed this app...
Tag this Judgment!