Allahabad Court August 1999 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.
Amar Nath Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2882
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard the petitioner Sri Amar Nath Gupta, who appears in person. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was accepted by Sri J. N. Sharma. Neither any counter-affidavit has been filed nor Sri Sharma is present. The respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. The twin prayers of thepetitioner are :(a) that the notice dated September 29, 1992, photocopy whereof is Annexure-9 to the petition, so far as it relates to the demand of Rs. 10.000 by way of compounding fee. be quashed : and (b) that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to sanction the map submitted by him for construction of the first floor in the building, namely, 3 Baghambari Housing Scheme, Allahpur, Allahabad. The petitioner contends that the demand of Rs. 10,000 by way of compounding fees is contrary to law.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised unauthorised constructions on the ground floor of the building. It is al...
Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Mau and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3508
D.K. Seth, J.1. Pursuant to an order dated 10.4.1996 in Writ PetitionNo. 949 of 1995, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 1, viz., the District Magistrate, Mau by order dated 8.8.1996 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.2. Shri Alik Kumar Yadav.learned counsel for the petitionercontends that the petitioner's casehas been refused on two grounds.viz., that the recovery by thepetitioner as collection Amin was lessand that his conduct was unbecomingof a Government servant. Accordingto him. this order has reflected astigma and as such the said ordercould not have been passed withoutholding an enquiry. He next contendsthat the persons having lesserrecovery than the petitioner havebeen retained and regularised.Therefore, there has been a violationof Article 14 of the Constitution incomparison with the petitioner andthose retained in service havinglesser recovery in their credit.According to him, t...
Preetam Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ85
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record of the case as well.2. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that he had recorded reasons in not accepting the charge sheet and not proceeding against the applicants. A careful examination of his order shows that the learned Magistrate had closely scrutinised the evidence. It appears that the accused persons had examined a sale deed in favour of the informant of their share in the ancestral property lying in Punjab. Their share in the entire property lying in Punjab as well as in Uttar Pradesh was 1/3rd. The accused persons are father and sons. The informant is brother of accused Preetam Singh. The prosecution or the complainant has not filed any reply to the affidavit of Preetam Singh. This affidavit discloses that accused Preetam Singh has executed a sale deed in favour of the informant, Dharam Singh, of a part of his share in the entire property,...
Prayag Lal Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)3UPLBEC2002
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and propriety of the order of transfer dated 3-2-1999, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2 transferring him from the post of Assistant Basic Siksha Adhikari (Nagar), Mirzapur to Shahganj, Jaunpur. It is prayed that the said order be quashed and the respondents be directed not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner on the said post at Mirzapur. An interim order staying the transfer of the petitioner was originally passed by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J. on 8-3-1999. The said order was recalled by him on 10-5-1999 as the Bench which he was presiding was not the appropriate Bench to take cognizance of the matter. The matter, therefore, came to be heard before the appropriate Bench presided over by Hon'ble M. Katju, J. who stayed the operation of the transfer order dated 3-2-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›