Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-05-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC929
V.M. Sahai and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the husband against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.8.2008 passed in a transfer application under Section 24, C.P.C. transferring Divorce Petition No. 1020 of 2006, Amit Khanna v. Smt. Suchi Khanna, from Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to the Family Court at Lakhimpur Khirt.2. At the very outset the Court confronted the learned Counsel for the appellant about the maintainability of this special appeal in view of the ratio of Jagdish Kumar v. District Judge, Budaun 1998 (1) ARC 305 : 1998 (2) AWC 293 (NOC). In the said case the single Judge has laid down that an order passed under Section 24, C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable. However, it can be subject to test under supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court provided it has been passed by the District Court and against an order passed by the High Court remedy under Section 25 of C.P.C. is availa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-23-2008
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2538
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 3, Hakeem Ziaul Rahman on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Landlord petitioner impleaded his real brother Jewan Lal Agarwal, respondent No. 4 as proforma opposite party in the release application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1990. Prescribed Authority/Munsif (West), Ballia allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 6.5.1994. Against the said judgment and order, tenant respondent No. 3 filed R.C. Appeal No. 5 of 1994. which was allowed by District Judge, Ballia on 31.7.1995 and judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority was set aside. This writ petition is direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-03-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3648
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Sudama Ji Shandilya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and learned standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.8.2002, passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.3. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition are that in the suit, order was passed by Assistant Collector, Orai on 30.7.1998. The decree in respect thereof was issued on 6.11.1998. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, petitioner filed appeal on 4.1.1999 before Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The aforesaid application was rejected vide order dated 22.11.1999. Against the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 22.11.1999...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-21-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1793
ORDERD.V. Sharma, J.1. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 1-12-2005 passed in criminal revision No. 217 of. 2005 by District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.2. Factual matrix is as under:An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that on 5-6-2000, the husband of the opposite party No. 2, namely, Prakash Chandra Raheja was admitted at Sheikhar Nursing Hospital, Lucknow. Dr. A. K. Sachan was the Managing Director of the Hospital and Dr. Deepak Agarwal was the main surgeon-cum-architect of the Hospital. On 6-6-2000 various investigation was conducted at the Hospital and on the advice of the doctor E.R.C.P. of late Prakash Chandra Raheja was done. He developed pain immediately during post operative period. The pain did not subside from 6-6-2000 onwards and he went in coma on 8-6-2000 with persistence of tachycardia and tachyponea. The condition of Sri Raheja deteriorated to the extent of his having developed respiratory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3574
Pradeep Kant, J.1. Following two questions arise for determination In the present writ petition:(1) Whether the information disclosing the names of the persons including address and amount, who have received more than Rs. 1 lac from the Chief Minister Discretionary Fund, can be given to the information seeker or it is an information, which stands exempted under Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act.(2) Whether the Chief Information Commissioner while considering the complaints under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Is competent only to award the prescribed punishment, in case of failure of information being given as per the provisions of the Act or while dealing with the said complaints, any direction can also be issued for furnishing the information which has not been provided, though it is not found to be exempted under the provisions of the Act.2. Right to Information Act. 2005 (referred to as the 'R.T.I. Act') enacted by the Parliament, received assent of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1156]; (2009)ILLJ358All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed by Kanapur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as KESCO) through its Managing Director against an award dated 22.1.2008 given by labour court, III, U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 38/2004.3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that Assistant Manager found respondent No. 1 absent from duty and therefore a show cause notice dated 28.12.2002 was issued to the workman for explaining his absence from 21.10.2002 in writing. The workman in his explanation dated 9.1.2003 informed that he was in jail as he stood surety for Rs. 15000/- of one Radhey son of Lalaram Jatav, in case crime No. 213/1994, Under Section 394, 307, 411, 420 IPC, P.S. Pheelkhana, Kanpur Nagar who did not appear in court on several dates.4. It appears that a notice was issued to the workman for recovery of surety amount of Rs. 15000/- but as he could not discharge his obligation towards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-11-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3671
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Prem Chandra Mishra, landlord of the premises in question has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 30.10.1995 passed by II Additional District Judge, Etah allowing Revision No. 6 of 1994 filed by the tenant Satya Prakash Sharma by setting aside order dated 11.4.1994 passed by Judge Small Causes/Additional Civil Judge, Etah in S.C.C. Misc. Case No. 1 of 1993 and directing for fresh decision in accordance with law on the question of compliance of provisions of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.2. Brief background of the case is that suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner against the tenant concerned Satya Prakash Sharma being J.S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1993. In the said proceedings tenant entered appearance and filed his written statement and also deposited Rs. 5,200 on the first date of hearing. On 27.4.1993 an order was passed to proceed ex parte against the tenant concerned fixing 17.5.199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-09-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2808
Dilip Gupta, J.1. These two applications have been filed by the returned candidate under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.') (A-7) for rejecting the election petition as it does not disclose any cause of action and under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. read with Section 86(1) of 'The Representation of the People Act, 1951' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') (A-6) for striking out paragraphs 5 to 21 of the Election Petition.2. The election petition has been filed by Smt. Lousie Khurshid under Section 80/81 of the Act calling in question the election of Kuldeep Gangwar for the Vidhan Sabha No. 297, Kaimganj constituency in the State of Uttar Pradesh.3. The petitioner Smt. Louise Khurshid and the respondent Kuldeep Gangwar, amongst others, had contested the said election which was held on 18th April, 2007. The re-poll was held on 10th May, 2007 on selected polling stations. The respondent was declared elected on 11th May, 2007 wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1123
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this group of writ petition is, whether Sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (iii) of Section 17 of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) is attracted in the instant case or not? The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions is, that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company and has a factory at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacture of paper. The raw material required for the manufacture of paper is wood which is purchased by the petitioner from various deposits of the U.P. Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.F.C.) through various allotment orders. These depots, according to the petitioner, are located in the 'reserved area' as notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is contended that in the reserved area, only such activities can be carried out which are permitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-05-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1435
A.N. Varma, J.1. One Ramraji was owner of plot No. 932 situate in village Shivdaha, Pargana, tahsll and district Bahraich. She died issuless on 8.11.1982. The petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 claimed rights to her property on the basis of Will said to have been executed by her in their favour. Proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act were thus initiated by the opposite party No. 2 which culminated in his favour. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which abated on village having been notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter the petitioner filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act which were barred by limitation by one and half years. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred praying therein for condonation of delay in filing the objections. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20th July, 2005 allowed the app...
Tag this Judgment!