Allahabad Court February 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.
Harendra Singh Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1432; (1998)2UPLBEC857
D.K. Seth, J.1. Notice dated 26.7.1997 issued by the District Magistrate fixing the date of meeting on 22.9.1997 for carrying on a motion of no confidence against the Chairman of Sahkari Ganna Vikash Samiti Ltd., Syana, district Bulandshahr pursuant to the notice of no-confidence served by the members of the Committee of Management on 27.2.1996, is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.2. The said challenge is based on the facts that a notice of no-confidence was submitted to the District Magistrate on 27.2.1996. The ultimate meeting did not materialise till the issuance of the notice dated 26.7.1997 because of various intervening reasons. In a civil suit being Original Suit No. 440 of 1996, an injunction was granted restraining the holding of the meeting. Subsequently, a fresh notice of meeting was issued on 7.11.1996. The said notice was ultimately set aside by the civil court by an order dated 6.12.1996. On appeal, the said order was set aside and the appellat...
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Sanjay Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1037
D.S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Hanuman Upadhya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants.2. The report of the Stamp Reporter points out that instant appeal is beyond time by 343 days.3. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, supported by the affidavit of Smt. Sangita Chakravarti. praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.4. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit which purports to explain the cause of delay runs as below:That the appellants after receiving a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 4.2.1997. immediately furnished the entire papers in the office of Chief Standing Counsel for preparation of the special appeal and thereafter the special appeal was prepared and the same is being filed before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.'5. In the opinion of the Court, the averments in the paragraph 4 of the affidavit reproduced above, do not constitute sufficient cause and ground for condonat...
Rakesh Kumar Sandilya Vs. Smt. Renu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1035
D. S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash. learned counsel appearing for Sri Rakesh Kumar Shandilya. the applicant.2. The applicant filed In the Court of Family Court, Meerut, a petition for divorce against Smt. Renu, the opposite-party, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), being Case No. 55 of 1997. The opposite party moved an application under Section 24 of the Act which has been allowed by the Family Court vide its order dated 3rd October, 1997. Against this order the applicant has filed instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the Code).3. The Stamp Reporter of the Court made a report dated 24th October, 1997 to the effect that the instant revision is not maintainable. Thereupon, the question of maintainability of revision received consideration of a learned single Judge.4. Before the learned single Judge, it appears, the learned counsel for the applicant took the stand that revision was ma...
Santosh Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1693
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order 30.12.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, and the orders dated 14.11.1996 and 5.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 1.2. The dispute relates in respect of plot No. 258 area 2.25 acres. The petitioner claims that he purchased this plot through a registered sale deed on 20.11.1974 executed by Chanan Singh, respondent No. 4. The proceedings for declaration of surplus land took place under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent No. 4. He was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act on 4.5.1974. He was served with the notice on 16.11.1974. On 20.11.1974, the petitioner purchased the disputed plot from him.3. The Prescribed Authority declared an area of 8.77 acres of land as surplus land of respondent No. 4. He filed an application to recall the said order on 3.7.1976. The said restoration application was re...
Panchhi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3305; AIR1988SC2726
K.D. Shahi, J.1. Appellants Panchhi, Manmohan and Smt. Ram Shree have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and death punishment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba in S.T. No. 47 of 1991 vide judgment and order dated 3-3-1997 for having murdered Bankey Lai, his mother Smt. Halki and wife and daughter Smt. Pan Kunwar and Km. Sonu on 26-10-1989 at 11.00 A.M. in village Tingara Police Station Mahoba district Hamirpur.2. The brief facts of the case which emerge out from the F.I.R. Police papers and other evidence on the record are that the accused persons were the next door neighbour of the deceased persons. Accused Panchhi is the father of Manmohan and Smt. Ram Shree. There was yet another accused Smt. Kalia wife of Panchhi. She died during the trial. Before 12 or 13 days of the occurrence, wife of deceased Bankey Lal was beaten by the wife and daughter of Panchhi. After this, deceased Bankey Lal and his wife had beaten Smt...
Vijay Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ521
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the upright on the following questions :1. Whether the duties of the public prosecutor/Government Advocate are statutory in nature? If so, its effect?2. Whether the public prosecutor/Government Advocate is a public servant holding a civil post and cannot be removed without affording him a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice?3. Whether before appointing a public prosecutor/Government Advocate, consultation with the High Court is necessary, in view of the undertaking given by the Advocate General and the practices or conventions?4. Whether a tenure appointment can be cut short by removing the appointee without giving him an opportunity to show cause?5. Whether a public prosecutor/Government Advocate appointed under a spoils system and can be removed by the spoils system and can be removed by the sweet discretion of the State ...
Radhika Vihar (E.W.S.) Colony Vikas Samiti, Saunkh Road, Mathura Vs. U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1144
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ. 1. Extraordinary remedies, like prerogative writs, oblige a citizen seeking it to come clean before the High Court and state the truth and nothing but the truth. In the present writ petition, the petitioners having filed a Civil Suit No. 274 of 1992 before the Civil Judge, Mathura, in the matter relating to and, in the context of, the same property, namely, accommodation provided to them in the economically weaker section category by the respondents, seek relief that no demands be made from them in addition to what was advertised and their peaceable possession be not disturbed. The reliefs are not different than those prayed in the writ petition.2. Long ago this Court had held in the matter of Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram, that material suppression of facts would disentitle the person of the writ which he seeks.3. The petitioners have materially suppressed facts that they have already utilised a remedy in the nature of a suit and it took the r...
Kunwar Raghuraj Pratap Singh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1999All98
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. This petition has been filed by Kunwar Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya with the prayer that a direction be issued to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, summoning the records and the order dated 9-2-1998 by which directions have been given for the petitioner to withdraw from the district of Pratapgarh. There is also a prayer for quashing of the direction or order of the Chief Election Commissioner. Yet another prayer is that the opposite parties be directed not to interfere in any manner, with the right of the petitioner to visit Pratapgarh or any other place of his choice pending elections or in connection with the discharge of his obligations as Minister of U.P. Government.2. We have heard the learned counsel, for thepetitioner as well as the counsel for the Union of India and the State of U.P. A short counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner of India. An application for implement has also been moved on behal...
Kishor and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2792
ORDER1. The two applications have been taken up together as the basis for detention of these two persons originates from the same single act although they were proceeded against under the provisions of the National Security Act on different dates under different orders. The grounds of detention for each indicates the afore-, said incident, to be described below in details, as also of the satisfaction of the detaining authority as to what is apprehended of the petitioners in case they get out on bail.2. The alleged incident which is the basis of on two detention orders took place on 7-4-97. A date prior to this incident, an established advocate Sri Dheeraj Singh Bhati was unanimously elected the President of the Bulandshai Sayan Garh Bugrasi Motor Union. Mahendra Sagar and his associates, including Kishor and Pappan, did not take part in the election and due to threat from Mahendra Sagar and his associates the said election had to be conducted under the supervision of the Additional Dis...
Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2879
1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report dated 20-12-1997 giving rise to registration of case crime No. 389 of 1997, P. S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli as contained in Annexure-3. Annexure-3 is a plain copy. Nowhere in the writ petition it has been stated that it is true copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report in question. It has also not been stated as to how the petitioner has obtained it. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition states that a true copy of the First Information Report is being filed as Annexure-3 which in the affidavit has been stated by the deponent-petitioner to be true to his personal knowledge.1.1. The petitioner claims himself to be the Joint Secretary of the Samajvadi Party of District Chandauli.1.2. The petitioner has come up with a claim that one Udai Nath Singh alias Chulbul is Vice-President of District Panchayat, Varanasi, who is contesting the M. L. C. elections from Varanasi constituency on Bhartiya Janta Par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »