Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.037 seconds)

Apr 23 1992 (HC)

Raj Mohan Krishna Vs. the Second Additional District Judge and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-23-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All40

order1. parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. durgesh kumar srivastava, respondent no. 3, filed an application on 24-4-1985 against the petitioner for release of the premises bearing no. 273 (southern portion) mumfordganj, allahabad, which is in his occupation. the release application was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 19-11-1987. the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was allowed by order dated 19-12-1988 by the iind addl. district judge and the case was remanded to the prescribed authority to consider the question of bona fide need afresh.3. one of the pleas raised on behalf of the tenant was that drugesh kumar srivastava, respondent no. 3, was not the landlord of the building and as such he had no right to file the release application. the learned iind additional district judge decided this question against the petitioner and held that respondent no. 3 was the landlord of the building in dispute. it is for quashing of this part of the appellate order that the present writ petition has been filed.4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.5. the material on-record reveals the following facts:--(1) the disputed premises were let out to the petitioner by k. n. srivastava, father of respondent no. 3; (2) k. n. srivastava gave written information to the petitioner on 24-10-1981 to the effect that on account of family .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1992 (HC)

Mangal Prasad Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-09-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All235

order1. sri satyadeo lal, who is arrayed as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition filed, suit no. 32 of 1985 in the court of the civil judge, basti for partition of the disputed house and sehan inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers, they have inherited the disputed property after the death of their father and purchased the land jointly shown by letters d] [k] x] ?k] n- since there is a dispute between the two brothers regarding their shares, it has become necessary to get the property divided by metes and bounds. the suit was contested by mangal prasad, who filed a written statement and, inter alia, contended that the property has already been partitioned by metes and bounds in the year 1978 and a memo of partition has also been executed between the parties on 27-3-78. this alleged memo of partition embodying the factum of partition was filed on behalf of defendant mangal prasad in the suit. the plaintiff filed an application on 5-3-1986 saying that the said document which is alleged to be memo of partition is actually a deed of partition which is unregistered as well as insufficiently stamped, hence the document is liable to be impounded under o. 13 rule 8 of the code of civil procedure. the defendant mangal prasad objected to the said application and contended that the document is simply a memorandum of partition and not the partition deed and as such no stamp is required on the same nor the document required any registration. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1992 (HC)

Ram Jiyawan Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-21-1992

Reported in : AIR1994All38

orders.c. mathur, j. 1. these petitions arise from proceedings to acquire land under the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (1 of 1894), for short act. common questions of law have been raised and, therefore, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. the facts stated in the judgment have been taken from writ petition no. 545 of 1991 in which short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the land acquisition officer.2. the facts generally stated in these petitions are as follows:--notification under section 4 was issued and thereafter declaration under section 6 was made. section 17 was applied and possession of the notified land was taken by the collector before publication of the award. at the time of taking possession there were trees and standing crops on the land and they were damaged but no compensation was paid for such damage at the time possession was taken and compensation for such damage was not included even in the final award. notice was issued under section 9(1) and the petitioners preferred claims for compensation. no date was fixed for hearing of the claims and the award was published in the absence of the petitioners. the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their claim. without giving them opportunity of hearing the award was made which is accordingly ex parte. the award has been made without obtaining the approval of the state government as required by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1992 (HC)

Brij Behari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-08-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2536

orderj.p. swmwal, j.1. by means of this application under section 482, cr. p.c. the applicant-brij behari seeks to quash the order dated 23-3-1980 (though in the certified copy date mentioned is 28-3-1980), passed by the joint magistrate, basti, and revisional order dated 24-10-1981, passed by the 1st additional sessions judge, basti, in proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c.2. the facts giving rise to the present application are that on the report of s.o. walterganj dated 10-7-1979 proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c. with regard to plot no. 255 area 0-14-7 of village baheria commenced. the learned joint magistrate basti passed the preliminary order on 10-7-1979. both the parties filed written statements and adduced evidence regarding their respective claim with respect to the plot in dispute. the opposite party no. 2 of the present application-jagdambika prasad, was first party and the applicant brij behari, was the 2nd party in the proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c. the first party jagdambika prasad in his written statement claimed to have purchased the plot in dispute from one smt. israji widow of lakchmikant through a registered sale deed and to be in possession thereof since then. it is also averred that the iind party has no connection with the said plot and there was no apprehension of breach of peace from the first party. the second party brij behari in his written statement urged that the sale deed executed in favour of the first party was void and it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1992 (HC)

Amar Nath Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-22-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All43

orderr. a. sharma, j. 1. town areacommittee, pipraich, district gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the committee) consists of 15 members (i elected chairman, 11 elected members and 3 nominated members). by notification dated 15-10-1990 three persons, namely, smt. kaushalya devi wife of ram asre prasad gupta, smt. narvada devi and sri ram awadh (hereinafter referred to as the nominated members first set) were nominated by the government of u.p. as members of the committee. on 25-3-1991 a notice of intention to make motion of no-confidence in the chairman, sri amar nath jaiswal, signed by 12 members including the above three nominated members was delivered to the district magistrate, who vide order dated 18-4-1991 convened the meeting of the committee on 26-4-1991 for considering the motion of no-confidence. before the meeting could be held, the government by notification dated 12-4-1991 cancelled the nomination of the members first set and nominated three other persons, namely, smt. kaushalya devi wife of sri hira lal, smt. sandhya devi and sri chaman (hereinafter referred to as the nominated members second set) in their place, against the above notification dated 12-4-1991 nominating the second set members, writ petition no. 10976 of 1991 was filed by the nominated members first set in which this court granted the following interim order on 24-4-1991:'issue notice. the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of amar nath jaiswal v. stale of u.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1992 (HC)

Mahabir Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-27-1992

Reported in : AIR1992All351; (1992)2UPLBEC1074

orderm. katju, j.1. the petitioner was elected chairman of town area, oran, district banda in 1988. by means of thepresent petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the district magistrate, banda dated 10-1-1992 (annexure-9 to the writ petition) under section 7-a of the u.p. town area act removing the petitioner from the post of chairman, as well as the order of the state government dated 21-1-1992 (annexure-10) to the writ petition) confirming the aforesaid order, and also the order of the district magistrate dated 24-1-1992 (annexure-1) appointing a prescribed authority.2. counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and 1 have heard shri r. n. singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri yatindra singh and standing counsel for the respondents, and i am disposing of this writ petition finally.3. section 7-a(l) of the u. p. town areas act states as follows :--'7-a. removal of a chairman or a member of a committere.-- (1) the prescribed authority, or, where an authority has not been prescribed, the district magistrate, may remove a chairman or any member of the committee who, in its or his opinion.(a) has been guilty of gross misconduct or failure in the discharge of his duties, or(b) has failed to pay for a period of more than one year any taxes, or other dues payable by him to the committee, or(c) has become disqualified for being a member under section 6-k :provided, firstly, that before making an order removing the chairman or the member, as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1992 (HC)

E. Sefton and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Government of India

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-17-1992

Reported in : 1993(63)ELT626(All)

s.p. srivastava, j.1. feeling aggrieved by an order dated 13th february, 1979, passed by respondent no. 3, the assistant collector of central excise, mirzapur, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 35 of the central excises and salt act, 1944, before the respondent no. 2, the appellate collector of central excise, new delhi. the order dated 13-2-1979 had been served on the petitioner on 15-2-1979. the appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. the period of limitation for filing the appeal prescribed under section 35 of the act as it stood at that time was only three months. the aforesaid appeal, which had been filed on 28-5-1979 was therefore barred by eleven days on the date of its filing. in this view of the matter, the petitioner prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal itself.2. the appellate authority rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, without going into the merits of the appeal and also without going into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds put forward by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of revision under section 36 of the central excises and salt act, 1944, before the central government but that revision was also dismissed vide its order dated 22-11-1982, without going into the merits, holding that the appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1992 (HC)

Shyam Kishore Goswami Vs. District Magistrate, Hamirpur and Another

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-30-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All1

orderm.k. mukherjee, c.j.1. the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dt. dec. 24. 1991, passed by a learned munsif of mahoba in a suit filed by the respondent no. 4 herein whereby he issued a temporary order of injunction restraining the municipality of mahoba fromholding a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the said respondent and also made a reference under s. 113 of the civil p.c. when the writ petition was taken up for hearing a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on behalf of the respondents, on the ground that the impugned order of injunction was an appealable one and, therefore, this court could not entertain the writ petition.2. it was, however contended by mr. khare appearing for the petitioner that as the suit filed by the respondent no. 4 was not maintainable, the impugned order of injunction was without any jurisdiction. mr. khare further submitted that the learned munsif could not have invoked s. 113 of the civil p.c. as the point on which he made the reference was no more res integra, so far as this court was concerned, in view of the division bench judgment of this court in the case of haji gafoor buksh v. state of u.p. reported in 1991 uplbec505.3. undisputedly, an order granting tem-porary injunction is appealable under 0.43, r. 1 of the civil p.c. and, therefore, the writ petitioner might have invoked and still now may invoke the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil court to assail the order in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1992 (HC)

Surinder Prakash Goel Vs. the State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-12-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All50

orderm. katju, j.1. the petitioner was elected president of municipal board, ghaizabad in february, 1989. he belongs to the congress-i party and it is alleged that ever since he assumed office attempts have been made by members of other parties to remove him from the office of president. it is alleged that one sri k. c. tyagi, member of parliament, who belongs to the janta dal and had animosity against the petitioner, made repeated efforts to dislodge the petitioner from office. hence he initiated a no-confidence motion against him, but it failed. thereafter sri tyagi wrote a letter to the then chief minister, sri mulayam singh yadav, true copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. on the basis of this letter, the chief minister directed the commissioner, meerut division, meerut to hold an enquiry and the commissioner appointed the additional district magistrate (city), ghaziabad to hold an enquiry who held an enquiry and found the petitioner to be innocent. true copy of the report of the addl. district magistrate is annexure 2 to the writ petition.2. thereafter, the state governmentissued notice under s.48(2) of the u.p. municipalities act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). true copy of the show cause notice dated 20-3-91 is annexure 3 to the writ petition. by this notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the president. the charges in the notice have been summarised in para 12 of the writ petition and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1992 (HC)

Sardar Malkeet Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-26-1992

Reported in : AIR1993All343

orderbrijesh kumar, j.1. it is noticed, more often than not, that human mind tries to hide or subvert the truth or to cover it up, as and when it suits him or may serve his purpose best. it has never been easy to find out the correct and true facts but the task is becoming more and more difficult with growing social complexities.2. various ways and means have been explored and deployed for the purposes of finding out the true facts, at different levels for different purposes. the commissions of enquiry act, 1952 is one of such legislations through which the effort is made to find out the true facts. but this act and appointment of a commission under it, does not ensure that the machinery is necessarily set in motion to achieve its object. there may still be many unforeseen hurdles which often come in the way retarding the progress of the enquiry. the present one is one of such cases where the commission was appointed, though on 1-8-1991 but, it could hardly function that instant proceedings were initiated challenging the appointment of mr. justice k.p. singh as commission of enquiry, besides a few orders passed by the commission about place of its sitting and the sequence in which the evidence was to be led i.e. on the question as to who should lead the evidence first.3. we have expressed the above feeling, which is certainly not accusatory in nature, but in anguish. ten human lives have been lost. human lives are precious. the government considering it a matter of public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //