Allahabad Court February 1995 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.
Basant Kumar Vs. University of Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All33
ORDER1. The petitioner, Basant Kumar filed the present writ petition challenging the letter issued to the petitioner from the University of Allahabad informing him that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Ordinances on the use of unfair means and of causing disturbances in Examination, You have been awarded following punishment for attempting/ using unfair means at the B. A. II Examination 1992 :'Cancellation of your result of B, A. II Examination of 1992 and also debarment from corresponding (and any other) subsequent examination of 1993.'The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means and the impugned order has been passed in retaliation, as the petitioner has filed writ petition in this Hon'ble Court being writ petition No. 12896 of 1993, seeking permission of the High Court to appear in the Examination of B. A. Part-II, as no decision...
Muzeeb Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All88
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against an order of Joint Director of Consolidation whereby in exercise of power under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (in short 'Act') he directed expunction of an amaldaramad made in CW Form 23. The amaldaramad expunged is in respect of plot No. 466 of village Seedha Sultanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh recorded in the name of petitioner and in its place entry to be made is of 'Deeh Asthan'. The amaldaramad, which has been ordered to be expunged is in the name of petitioner recorded in pursuance of an order passed by Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1960 in case No. 2355.2. The facts necessary for determining present controversy as set-out in writ petition are that the Consolidation Officer Azamgarh passed an order in Case No. 2355 of 31-3-60 to enter the name of petitioner Muzeeb over plot No. 338 (Old No. 466). The amaldaramad was done accordingly in relevant records of consolidation operation. It was also incorporate...
Majhiyari Matsya Palan Evam Nauka Sanchalan Samiti Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All419
ORDER1. On 3rd August, 1994 auction for settlement of ferry over river Yamuna at Majhiyari Ghat, Allahabad was held in which petitioner's bid for Rs. 12,000/- being highest was provisionally accepted. On 13-9-1994 he was permitted by the department to operate the ferry subject to the approval by the Commissioner. Commissioner vide letter dated 21-11-1994 refused to accept the bid of the petitioner and directed for re-auction. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition. This court on 30-11-1994 granted an interim order permitting the petitioner to operate the ferry.2. Zila Panchayat and the Government have filed counter affidavits. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.4. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that a complaint was made against the bid of the petitioner on the ground that it was not a registered society and as such was not en...
Pavan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All440
ORDERS.R. Singh, J.1. Principal reliefs claimed in these petitions are three fold, (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as Professional Guides on the ground that they do not have licence from the department of Archaeological Survey of India or Tourism, (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certio.rari quashing the last part of R. 8(d) of the Rules made under the Ancient Monument and Archeoiogical Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue licences to the petitioners forthwith.2. Sri G. C. Bhattacharya, counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petn. No. 29806 of 1990 led the principal arguments and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions made short work of their arguments by adoption of the arguments canvassed by Sri G. C. Bhattacharya. Bottomline ...
Associated Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT14(All)
K.L. Sharma, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner for clarification of the order dated 10-1-1995 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 57 of 1994 as the learned Tribunal has observed that there is a confusion.2. I have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Shukla learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the writ petition in which this order finally disposing of the writ petition was passed.3. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, I find that there is no confusion, but it is surprising that the President of the learned Tribunal as well as technical member have not been able to appreciate the observation:'But the same purpose could be achieved by permitting him to furnish a security bond.' made by this Court with a view to repel the condition of cash deposit of seven lacs. This observation is required to be kept into consideration by the learned Tribunal while reconsidering and deciding afresh the waiver/st...
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Umrao and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All389
1. For industrial development, Slate of Uttar Pradesh proposed to acquire 171 acres 56 decimals of land in village Tigaria Bhoor within Tahsil and Pargana Hasanpur of Moradabad District. Acquired land was classified to be agricultural land. Land Acquisition Collector categorised the land into six classes and offered compensation to the land owners on various rates for each class of land. Land owners were claiming before the land Acquisition Col-lector market value at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre. Being dissatisfied with the compensation offered each of the land owners requested for reference to be made to court for determination of market value to get enhanced compensation. One of the land owner made an application that acquired land contained bore well and trees for which he is entitled to compensation, on basis of these requests Land Acquisition Collector made 15 references to the Civil Court. Learned District Judge hearing one reference of Abdul Qayum, gave the award on 20th of ...
intezar Ahmad and Another Vs. Jumman and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All439
ORDER1. Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-applicants and Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, holding brief of Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite parties.2. In Original Suit No. 65 of 1982 between Jumman and others and Smt. Raisa Khatun and others, pending in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad, the applicants figure as defendants Nos. 8 and 12. On 4th November, 1988, when the suit was called on for hearing, the defendant-applicants did not appear. The Court, therefore, ordered the suit to be heard ex parte under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of R. 6 of 0.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code.3. Later on, two applications, one on behalf of the defendant-applicant No. 1 and the other on behalf of defendant-applicant No. 2, praying for recall of the order dated 4th November, 1988 directing the suit to proceed ex parte was made under R. 7 of 0. 9 of the Code. The applications were supported by the...
Khacher Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All338
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner's father, Sri Khacher Singh filed this writ petition on 11-10-1993, challenging the Notifications dated 24-1-1983 and 14-2-1983 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively. Prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to exempt the acquired area of plot No. 8 from acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Act has also been made. An additional prayer for direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's representation regarding exemption to the said plot from the acquisition proceedings is also there. On 12-10-1993 this Court granted time to the learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit and passed the following interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the acquired land:'Until further orders dispossession of the petitioner from plot No. 8M. area4 Bighas 4 Biswas, 11576 square yards, situate in village Kishanpur, Pargana and Tahsil Koil, dis...
Latif Vs. Arktari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC644
N.B. Asthana, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist. Opposite party who is admittedly wife of the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in 1979. This application was allowed ex-parte on 23.6 1979. The order for maintenance was put into execution a number of times and it is argued that every time the revisionist filed objection stating that he was of unsound mind and that the ex-parte order passed against him be set aside. The execution application was dismissed for one reason or the other but not on merits. It is further argued that thereafter the revisionist did not press his application for setting aside the ex-parte maintenance order. The opposite party again filed application for execution of the maintenance order and in execution thereof the revisionist was sought to be arrested and sent to civil prison. He thereafter again filed an application for setting aside the ex-pane order of maintenance through his next friend and guardian alleging that he wa...
Mirza, Son of Laloo and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ472
R.B. Mehrotra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-7-78 passed by Sri S. S. Gupta, Fifth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 177 of year 1977 convicting the appellants Mirza, Kishore, Ram Bala alias Ram Bal, son of Mirza, Multaz, Sukhpal, Algauj, Ramdhari, Nithohar, Bansu, Ram Kewal, Swaroop, Keshav, Sriram, Phaggu and Banarasi, and sentencing them for life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C., for 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 323/149 I.P.C. after holding them guilty of the abovementioned charges.2. Abovementioned appellants/accused Paras, Sriram, Phaggu and Banarasi have been found guilty on the charge under Section 148 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, and the remaining 4 appellants have been found guilty on the charge under Section 147 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »