Allahabad Court January 1998 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.
Dr. Kumari Nazma Bano Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC877; (1998)3UPLBEC2111
Dr. Maithli Sharan, J.1. The petitioner, claiming herself to be a full-fledged Lecturer of Asian Culture in Shia Degree College, Lucknow (opposite party No. 3), has invoked the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parry No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, to pay the balance scale of pay to her, and further commanding the opposite parties to decide her representations, contained in Annexures-5 and 6, and not to re-advertise the post of Lecturer for the subject of Asian Culture in the Shta Degree College, Lucknow.2. The factual matrix of this petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner has averred that in April, 1988 the post of Lecturer in the subject of Asian Culture was advertised by opposite party No. 3, Shia Degree College. Lucknow and she applied in response to the said advertisement ; several candidates were interviewed by the selection...
Sant Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC876
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. The petition is being finally disposed of.2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned against Ram Avtar and Sunder (private persons) and Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain, O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verrna (all public servants), alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 447 and 448. I.P.C.3. The main thrust of the objections before the learned trial court was that so far as the aforesaid public servants are concerned, they cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the State Government. This objection found favour with the learned Magistrate concerned. He, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. Similarly, in revision, being Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1997 filed by the complainant, the order of the learned trial court was upheld.4. In this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has deleted the names of the aforesaid public servants, namely, Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain. O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verma, respondents No. 5, ...
Vinod Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC910; (1998)2UPLBEC1360
O.P. Garg, J.1. The petitioners, who are 35 in number, were appointed on 24.6.1997 by Dr. Ram Lakhan, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Allahabad Region, Allahabad in pursuance of special recruitment drive for filling up the vacancies in class IV cadre to level up the quota of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and other reserved categories. They were not allowed to Join in pursuance of the order, dated 22.7.1997 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry--respondent No. 3.2. Put briefly, the case of the petitioners is that they have been duly selected by the selection committee constituted for the purpose and in pursuance of the directions Issued by the State Government and, therefore, there was no justification to prevent them from Joining their duties in pursuance of the appointment letters issued to them on 24.6.1997. It is prayed that the direction in the form of a notice Issued by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pratapgarh, dated 1.7.1997 and the order dated 2.7....
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chhotey Lal Sharma and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC914
S.C. Verma, J.1. This petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary to Government, Home Department, the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director General of Police. Uttar Pradesh. the Inspector General of Police. U. P. Police, Head Quarter, Allahabad, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Lucknow and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range. Gorakhpur, challenging the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 3.6.1986 by which the remark entry against the Opposite Party No. 1 in List II of 1980 was quashed with retrospective effect and the order cancelling the name of the Opposite Party No. 1 from the List II of 1980 was also quashed with retrospective effect. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal had directed the department to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion from the date the candidate at Sl. No. 43 of List II of 1980 was promoted as Inspector and to pay the salary and allowances to which he would become enti...
Kripal Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, Haldwani, Nainital and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1082
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.8.95 passed by the prescribed authority and for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No. 2 (applicant).2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It appears that an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a), U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) was filed against the petitioner showing her need for release. A reply to the application by way of written statement was filed denying the allegations mentioned in the application. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection in support of her case. The petitioner filed an application dated 5.7.95 to cross-examine the applicant. This application was rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged this order.4. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner has ur...
Kripa Shankar Gupta Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2267
S.C. Verma and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ.1. The present petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order to the Tribunal dated 29.1.1982 passed in claim petition No. 806 (F) 111/78 dismissing the claim petition against the order dated 28.11.1977 passed by the Director of Agriculture, dismissing the petitioner from service and recovery of Rs. 2366.14.2. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Seed Store Incharge, Jamalpur, District Mirzapur and was transferred on 18.5.1972 to Tisuhi Seed Store, Mirzapur. After the petitioner failed in his attempt to get the order of transfer, cancelled the handed over the charge of the Stores to his successor Sri S.B. Singh, from 4th July, 1972 to 16.7.1972.The petitioner took charge of Seed Store at Tisuhi on 27th July, 1972 from Sri Prem Chandra Srivastava. The petitioner went on leave from 4th August, 1972 to 31st October, 1972. The petitioner could not hand over full charge of the Seed Store a...
NaraIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4158
N.S. Gupta, J.1. Accused appellant-- Narain, Lakman and Mohan who were real brothers, were convicted by Sri Sachidanand, the then Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 384 of 1980 under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and further under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under the first count and 5 years R.I. under second count; both the sentences were to run concurrently, as per his judgment and order dated 24-2-1981, have come up in appeal before this Court.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as follows :The complainant Ram Singh P.W. 2 and the accused appellants were all resident of village Salempur, P.S. Man Darwaza, District Farrukhabad Kali Charari deceased was son of injured Pultu Lal PW 1 was a Kishan by caste. The accused appellants, as also their brother Arjun (accused since absconding also during trial) were Jatav by caste, on 14th Sept. 1979, at about 5.30 PW the injured Puttu Lal PW 1 along with h...
Hazi Ismail Vs. Ejaz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2508
1. All the above matters were heard together as all of them arose from the judgment and order dated 18-11-1980 passed in S.T. 106 of 1980recorded by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. In the trial four persons, namely, Moinuddin, Ejaz Ahmad, Quddus and Ali Ahmad stood a charge under Sections 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. and while Moinuddin was found guilty of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment, the other three were acquitted of the charges. Moinuddin preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2628 of 1980 against the order of his conviction and sentence. The State preferred the Government Appeal No. 638 of 1981 against the order of the acquittal of the other three accused persons and the complainant preferred the Criminal Revision No.236 of 1981 for setting the order of the acquittal and for remanding the case to trial Court. In fact the scope of this criminal revision was certainly narrow as in the revisional jurisdiction this Court could not have impo...
MoinuddIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2496
1. All the above matters were heard together as all of them arose from the judgment and order dated 18-11-1980 passed in S.T. 106 of 1980 recorded by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. In the trial four persons, namely, Moinuddin, Ejaz Ahmad, Auddus and Ali Ahmad stood a charge under Section 302 and 302/34. I.P.C. and while Moinuddin was found guilty of an offence under Section 302. I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment, the other three were acquitted of the charges. Moinudin preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2628 of 1980 against the order of his conviction and sentence. The State preferred the Government Appeal No. 638 of 1981 against the order of the acquittal of the other three accused persons and the complainant preferred the Criminal Revision No. 236 of 1981 for setting the order of the acquittal and for remanding the case to the trial Court. In fact the scope of this criminal revision was certainly narrow as in the revisional jurisdiction this Court could not have ...
Vijay Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC636; (1998)2UPLBEC1043
Aloke Chakrabarii, J.1. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi (Annexurc-2 to the writ petition) terminating the service of the petitioner. Facts involved are that the petitioner while he was a civil police constable was involved in a criminal case under Sections 302/34 and 323/34. I.P.C., when the first information report was lodged on 5.3.1983 relating to an occurrence taking place at 8 a.m. on 5.3.1983. The petitioner along with his nephew, brother and another were named in the first information report as accused persons. ResultingSessions Trial No. 176 of 1983 led to suspension of the petitioner on 6.3.1983 under para 496 of the Police Regulations. By judgment dated 28.9.1985 in the said sessions trial, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »