Allahabad Court November 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India Vs. Sri Simon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All74; [1990(60)FLR147]; (1990)3UPLBEC1866
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the Union of India against the order dated 24-9-1984 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Agra, rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-8-1983 in suit No. 225 of 1983 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff opposite party.2. The facts in brief arc that the opposite party who was a Mess Worker in Air Force atAgra filed suit No. 225 of 1983 for setting aside his order of termination on the allegation that his services were wrongly terminated.3. The suit was contested on behalf of the applicant. It was ultimately decreed.4. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree in suit No. 225 of 1983 intended to prefer an appeal. The necessary steps were taken by the applicant for applying the certified copies of the judgment and decree on 24-8-1983. It-may be relevant that the decree was signed on 16-8-1983. The copies of the judgment and decree were ready on 29-8-1983 ...
Babu Khan Vs. Smt. Chahti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All112
ORDER1. The defendant-applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 1988, passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, rejecting his application under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and declining to return the plaint of Suit No. 24 of 1986.2. Before the court below it was contended by the applicant that he was not a tenant of the house in dispute but was owner thereof. According to him, the plaintiff-opposite party was not the owner and landlady of the house. On these contentions, the applicant urged that there was a serious dispute of title of the property in suit and the court should exercise discretion under Section 23 of the Act to direct the return of the plaint.3. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that, on record, there exists a registered sale-deed executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party in respect of the house in suit. There exists also a rent note executed ...
Ravindra Tyagi Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ310All; (1990)1UPLBEC154
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. The petitioner, Ravindra Tyagi, of the U.P. Civil Services being a confirmed Naib Tahsildar, was promoted in the year 1968 as Tahsildar and continued to discharge functions as a Tahsildar for eight years. Thereafter, in the year 1976 he was promoted as a Deputy Collector and since then he had been serving as a Deputy Collector, but in an officiating capacity. He was looking forward to promotion in the senior scale in the Provincial Civil Services Cadre, as a matter of right. This promotion was eluding him. It is on record, and not denied, that the petitioner was one of the senior-most Tahsildars in the seniority list maintained by the State of U.P. There is also no issue on the fact that he is also one of the senior-most in the seniority list of the Provincial Civil Services cadre.Upon finding that the promotion was dodging his right, the petitioner laid a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (3) Lucknow. This did not meet with success. It w...
Daya Shankar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1647
Giridhar Malaviya, J.1. Petitioner Daya Shanker Singh was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA') by an order dated 22nd February, 1989 of the State of U.P. The allegations against the petitioner in the grounds stated were that on the commercial establishment of the petitioner being searched, from the godown of the petitioner which was adjacent to the shop, several open cartons were found concealed behind the bags of spices. From these cartons 7 V.C.Ps. 'Pye' Brand made in Japan as also 24 bags of foreign made polyester yarn were recovered. As no papers could be produced by the petitioner for keeping these foreign V.C.Ps. and polyester yarn, the custom authorities seized the same and prepared its recovery memo. The value of the seized articles was assessed at Rs. 2,14,000/-. It was alleged in the grounds that in the voluntary statement made by the petitioner before the custom o...
Mohammad Salim Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1724
G. Malaviya, J.1. Petitioner Mohd. Salim challenges his detention in pursuance of an order dated 12-4-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The ground in support of the order of detention alleged that on the night of 10-3-1989 at about 3 a.m. the petitioner along with his associates went to the Octroi check post at Reewa Road within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad where Chhedilal Yadav, Octroi Clerk, Bhagwati Prasad Dubey, Assistant Octroi Clerk, Ramanand Clerk, Anoop Kumar and Ishtiyaq Ahmed peons were on duty. Three miscreants were armed with country made pistols and one was empty handed, after entering the octroi room they threatened the persons on duty not to move lest they shall be shot dead. Thereafter one of the associates of the petitioner viz. Asharaf alias Pappu took away about Rs. 3,000/- which was placed near the desk on the carpet as also the revenue stamps and the receipts which he kept in his pocket. ...
Harihar Chaitanya Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2082
ORDERR.K. Saksena, J. 1. On the fact of a written report made at police station Mohammadi, district Lakhimpur-Kheri, on 6-10-1988 by Sri Satish Kumar Bajpai against Sri Harihar Chaitanya (applicant) and one Devesh Kumar Trivedi, a crime was registered under 336 and 506 of the Penal Code. The applicant was arrested and produced on 7-10-1989 before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. The Investigating Officer prayed for detention of the applicant for a period of 14 days in judicial custody. The Magistrate perused the contents of the First-Information-Report and formed an opinion that provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were, prima facie, attracted. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 7-10-1988, be directed for the preparation of jail warrant for detention of the applicant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Code) has been filed for quashing the said order.3. I...
Smt. Umma Saghir Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All100
ORDER1. By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has come up before this Court against the orders dt. 2-1-1988 and 20-2-I98S passed by the Addl. Munsif, Gorakhpur and District Judge, Gorakhpur, respectively.2. Izzatullah, respondent No. 3, in this petition, filed a suit for injunction in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur. The suit was numbered as Civil Suit No. 691 of 1985. In the said suit the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner who was defendant No. 1, filed her written statement. In the said written statement one of the pleas taken by the petitioner was that other landlords of the premises in dispute who are necessary parties having not been impleaded as defendants in the suit, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, the learned Munsif framed Issue No. 6. Issue No. 6 was as to whether suit filed by the plaintiff was bad for non-jo...
Prem Pal Varshney Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ989
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J.1. Whether in a case under Sections 27(1)(b) read with Sections 18(a)(i) 18(a)(II), 18(a)(II-A) and Section 18(a)(VI) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act No. 47 of 1975 (for short the Act), where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life, which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, can the Chief/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who can award maximum sentence of seven years in view of Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code), try the case himself or commit it to the Court of Session, is the short point for consideration under present criminal revision by one of the accused.2. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 23-9-1985 held that he need not commit the case to the Court of Session, rather he would try it himself, whereas in revision against that order it was held by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 10-12-1986 that the Additional Chief Judicial...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›