Allahabad Court August 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.
Nagdev Sons and ors. and Ram Baboo Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)380; [2001]107CompCas226(All); 1999CriLJ518
Giridhar Malaviya, J. 1. In view of the diversion of opinion in two cases decided by learned single judges, viz., in the cases of Smt. Kamal Sharma v. State of U. P. [1995] 32 ACC 239 and Mirza Mansoor Beg v. Riyazuddin [1996] AAC (Crl.) 22, J.C. Mishra J. has referred the matter to the Division Bench to resolve the conflict between the two decisions of learned single judges of this court.2. The controversy is in respect of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The question involved is, that, if a party has issued a cheque to the other party and the cheque has been returned by the bank without obtaining payment with the request to send the cheque for encashment again and then the cheque is presented and still the payment is not obtained, the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be necessary within 15 days from the return of the cheque for the first time or whether limitation would start running from the subsequent dishonour of the cheque witho...
Anurudh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2178
M. Katju, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. In this case, on 30.3.1998 one month's time was granted to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. Sri S. K. Srivastava has appeared for respondents and is supporting the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was selected as clerk in Phula Rani Janta Higher Secondary Schools, Balanpur, Kannauj and his papers were sent to the Management of the D.I.O.S., for approval vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also been working since 17.2.1998 as stated in paragraph 9 to the petition. However, the D.i.O.S., Farrukhabad has disapproved the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 23.9.1981, Annexure-4 to the petition. In his order dated 4.3.1998, it is stated that the High School and Intermediate Colleges should only give appointment to those claiming under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.3. The Supreme Court in a very recent, decision in Director of Education (Secondar...
Vijay Anand Industries Paramount and Another Vs. Civil Judge (Senior D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC463
D. K. Seth, J.1. The judgment and decree dated 23.7.1994 passed by Civil Judge, Roorkee, district Haridwar in Original Suit No. 103 of 1984, has been sought to be quashed in this writ petition. I am afraid that writ jurisdiction can be invoked for quashing judgment and decree passed by the civil court in civil suit. The judgment and decree is appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed. The decree has been put into execution. In such circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. The writ court lacks jurisdiction to quash the judgment and decree passed by the civil court which is otherwise appealable not only once but twice. The Code of Civil Procedure has made adequate provision for remedy of grievance of the aggrieved person upto the Apex Court by means of appeal and various other proceedings provided therein. There is no provision for stretching writ jurisdiction for the purposes of providing remedy ...
Vineet Misra Vs. Reviewing Authority, Industrial Relation Departmental ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC498
R. K. Mahajan, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24th June. 1987 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and order dated 11th June, 1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). By the impugned order dated 24th June, 1987, the .reviewing authority has enhanced the penalty of reduction by three stages imposed on petitioner to that of dismissal.2. The petitioner at the relevant time, i.e., on 15.1.1985 was an employee of the Bank dealing with the Job of receiving cash. One C. P. Gupta came and handed over a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner for depositing the same in his account. The petitioner gave him counterfoil but deposited the said amount after a month, i.e., on 15.2.1985. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 2.11.1985 and enquiry was instituted. The petitioner pleaded guilty but claimed leniency in the quantum of punishment with the plea that the alleged misconduct was unintentional....
Samajwadi Party, District Budaun Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC503
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel at length and the learned standing counsel and perused the impugned order and the material placed on record.2. The proceedings relating to vacancy were initiated on an intimation of vacancy given by the landlord. While giving the said intimation-, the landlord, who is an officer in Armed Forces also moved an application for the release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the same was required for the residence use of his children as he had to remain posted on 'hard stations'. It appears that the said accommodation was ordered to be inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. It is apparent that the Rent Control Inspector did not contact the landlord before submitting the report nor any notice as required under Rule 8 (2) of the rules was served upon the landlord, The release application of the landlord was rejected by the Rent Control Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. No notice as contemplated under Rule 9...
Shesh Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ296
ORDERS.K. Phaujdar, J.1. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the proceedings in S. T. No. 128 of 1989 under Sections 302 and 120 of the Railways Act now pending before the VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge at Deoria. It is stated that the applicant had moved an application for discharge on the ground that cognizance was illegally taken but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had rejected the application and directed that charges be framed. Normally, an order framing charge is open to revision and an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not ordinarily entertained in such cases. Learned counsel, however, submitted that he was not claiming a discharge on the basis of the materials on record, rather he was challenging the very basis of the prosecution initiated upon the charge-sheet.2. The FIR in the instant case (case Crime No. 52, of 1986) was registered against the applicant on 7-4-86. An investigation was taken up by the GRPS, Bhatni....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›