Allahabad Court May 1992 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.
israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All87
ORDER1. The aforesaid petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed) on 16-4-92 by Israr Ahmad praying for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty on the allegations that in the night intervening between 8th and 9th April, 1992 the Station House Officer, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad had taken him away from his house and he was being illegally detained.2. The writ petition was heard by the Division Bench constituted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Palok Basu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Varma and the order sheet shows that after hearing the counsel for the parties the judgment was reserved on 22-5-92.3. On 25-5-92 since Hon'ble Mr. Justice Palok Basu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Varma were not present at Allahabad the judgment delivered by them was pronounced by me in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 2 of Chapter VII of the Rules of th...
Sher Bahadur Singh and Etc. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and ors. Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ720
Palok Basu, J.1. In all the aforesaid four cases one of the points argued was that at the time of arrest of the petitioner in each case the ground of arrest and full particulars regarding it were not disclosed and, therefore, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India stood violated. The other question in all the four cases was whether the petitioner was detained for a period more than necessary and in some beyond 24 hours and, therefore, Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India was violated. On these two grounds it was argued that the continued detention of the petitioner in each case was illegal. Some questions of fact were raised relating to each case which shall be dealt with at the relevant place. It may be noted here that in all the cases counter affidavits by the relevant opposite parties have been filed to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, as prayed by learned Counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being finally disposed at the ad...
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. ...
Mahendra Pratap Singh (Deceased) and Another Vs. Smt. Padam Kumari Dev ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All143
1. A very ugly situation faces the Court, the High Court, in its original jurisdiction in these cases. Many questions have been flung at the Court. The Court must answer them as they are all questions which this Court or any other Court will have to face some time or the other in the conduct of original proceedings.2. There are two matters before the Court. Both arise out of and relate to the estate of one Mahendra Pratap Singh. By testamentary case No. 13 of 1986 (subsequently converted into testamentary suit No. 2 of 1988) Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother of the deceased, applied to the High Court for letters of administration on September 18, 1986. Notices were issued on the petition and an order for citation was also made. A year anda quarter later a petition was filed by Padma Kumari seeking letters of administration on the same estate of the deceased. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh has sought letters of administration upon a will dated November 25, 1985. Pa...
Ramesh Chandra Dixit Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ354All
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner was a permanent weaver in the service of the respondent No. 2. He also worked as substitute Line Mistry as and when the occasion arose between 1974 to 1984. In 1982 a post of permanent Line Mistry fell vacant and the petitioner made a claim for the same but his claim was rejected. It is alleged in para 6 of the petition that in January, 1984 the respondent No. 2 appointed one Munna in the aforesaid vacancy ignoring the lawful claim of the petitioner. Subsequently permanent vacancies of Line Mistry arose in Line 4,5,8, and 9 and again the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Line Mistry was ignored and persons junior to him were appointed as Line Mistry while the petitioner was not promoted. Aggrieved the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to respondent No. 1 which by the impugned award dated July 2, 1987 (Annexure 1 to the petition) decided in favour of respondent No. 2.2. This petition has been filed against the impugned awar...
Subhash Chandra Vs. District Cane Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ255All
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. These 12 writ petitions posted for admission involve identical questions for determination. Counsel for the parties are also the same. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged except in one writ petition. At the request of the counsel for the parties, writ petitions were heard on merits for being decided finally under the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII, Rules of Court.2. Brief facts leading to the petitions are-(a) Sri Subhash Chandra, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4982 of 1988, was deputed for completing the records of the Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor, by the District Cane Officer in the capacity as District Assistant Registrar, Cane Co-operative Society, Bijnor (for brevity, 'the District Assistant Registrar'). He was deputed in exercise of the powers contained in Rule 365 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')vide order dated March 11, 1988 on the r...
Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs. S.K. Bawa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3192
ORDERI.S. Mathur, J.1. By this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying that the criminal proceedings against the applicant under Section 403/422, I.P.C. in Case No. 210 of 1991 S.K. Bawa v. Suresh Prasad Yadav pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Bareilly including the summoning order and the search warrant dated 14-3-1991 are sought to be quashed. It is further prayed that the direction be also issued for the release of Truck No. B.H.Q. 8755 in favour of the applicant.It appears that applicant Suresh Prasad Yadav is the registered owner of the Truck No. B.H.Q. 8755. Previously the Truck was owned by Sri Pramod Kumar who agreed to sell it to the applicant for a sum of Rs. 95,000/-. The applicant paid Rs. 30,000/-to Pradeep Kumar as advance and approached the respondent, who is the Financier, for a loan of Rs. 65,000/- in September 1986. The Bank drafts were given by the opposite party which was endorsed in favour of Pradeep Kumar and thus entire amou...
Satyapal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4061
I.S. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-2-1979 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment on the first count and two years rigorous imprisonment on the second count.2. It appears that these appellants, alongwith with one Ranvir Singh, were tried in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 1978. Accused Satyapal was charged under Section 148, I.P.C., Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and Section 307 read with 149, I.P.C. and the accused Ajab Singh and Ranvir Singh were charged under Section 148, I.P.C., Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and Section 307 read with 149, I.P.C. In another Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1978 arising out of the same incident, two other accused, namely Ompal and Subhash were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Section 307 read with Section 149, I...
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 f...
Sanjay Kanojia and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All281
ORDER1. By this writ petition thepetitioners have challenged the cancellation of their result of Intermediate Examination of 1990 by the Cancellation Committee of Meerut Region of U.P. Board of High Schooland Intermediate Examination (in short 'cancellation committee').2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, The counsel for the petitioner stated that no rejoinder-affidavit is necessary in this case and, therefore, the case can be disposed of at the stage of admission. It is accordingly being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court at this stage.3. The facts necessary for the purpose of this petition are that the petitioners appeared in Intermediate Examination of 1990 of U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (in short 'Board') as students of O.F. Inter College, Marudnagar (in short 'College'). There is controversy between parties in respect of declaration of result of petitioners, the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »