Allahabad Court July 2000 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.
Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4687
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. Revisionist, Sunil Kumar is an accused in case crime No. 405 of 2000, under Section 307, 302/34, IPC police station Khurja Nagar, district Bulandshahar. He moved an application before the Juvenile Judge alleging himself to be juvenile. The learned Juvenile Judge rejected the application by order dated 30-11-1999, with the conclusion that the revisionist is not a juvenile. Against that order, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1999 under Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appeal was also dismissed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar on 6-1-2000 and the contention of the revisionist is that he is juvenile was also not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision has been preferred.2. I have heard Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.3. It is contended that the incident took place on 10-8-1999. The date of birth of the revisionist is 22-6-1984 and he was below sixt...
Vijay Singh and anr. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4494
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The appellant, Vijay Singh has made a request for bail in appeal filed against his conviction for offence under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and D.P. Act in S.T. No. 1294 of 1996 decided on 5-3-1998 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Aligarh.2. I have heard Sri G.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, Vijay Singh and the learned A.G.A.3. It is contended that the appellant is in jail since April, 1996 i.e., since last four years. Learned Counsel has referred to decision of the Apex Court in the case of Takhat Singh v. State of M.P. (1999) 10 JT 438. In this case, the appeal against the conviction for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was pending before High Court. The appellants applied for bail and it was rejected indicating that the appellants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After one year second bail application was moved which was also rejected. Therefore, the convicts filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed by th...
Mumtaj S/O Peer Bux (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4497
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J. 1. The applicant Mumtaj has applied for bail for offences under Section 49(B)/51 Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (Van Jeejv Sanrakshan Adhiniyam), under Section 10/15 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 429 and 411, I.P.C.2. I have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri Girdhar Nath, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for Wild Life Protection Society, New Delhi.3. According to the prosecution, on 11-1-2000 the houses of Shabbir and Wahid were searched by a police party headed by C.O. Fatehpur, Shabbir arid Wahid were, however, not available. Accused Mohammad Ramjan, Mumtaj Ahmad (applicant), Hamid All and Smt. Jiabun Nishan were found in the house. On search more than 400 skins of wild animals, hundreds of teeth and thousands of nails and other precious parts of the body were recovered from their houses. Apart from this, guns were also recovered, which were kept for use for ...
Paras Nath Tiwari Vs. Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2469; [2000(86)FLR732]; (2000)3UPLBEC1962
Binod Kumar Roy and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.12.1990 passed by the Dean, Faculty Affairs. Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur (Respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexure-12 in so far as it relates to his termination of services by grant of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari. The impugned order reads thus :'Further to letter No. Estt. 4493 (FA)/89-1ITK/4183 dated December 1, 1989, the term of probationary period of Shri P. N. Tewarl. Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft), Department of Aerospace Engineering has been extended for a period of six months w.e.f. November 4. 1990 on the same terms and conditions contained in the original appointment letter No. DF/D-1 (FA)/IITK/88/ 1333 dated September 13/20, 1988, with the stipulation that no further extension will be given. Sd. (V. SUNDARARAJAN) DEAN, FACULTY AFFAIRS'The Relevant Facts :2. The petitioner then serving as Seargent in Indian Air Force who had o...
Abul Kalam and Another Vs. Prescribed Authority and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2472; (2000)3UPLBEC2499
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The order dated 19th March, 1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Phulpur, district Azamgarh in Case No. 3/3 under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act has since been challenged. Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint was made by only two persons, out of whom one person had contested the case. Therefore, reference could not be made under Section 25 (1) of the Act, since, it has to be made at least by 1/4th of the members. In the alternative, he contends that even if the Registrar makes a reference, in that event such reference is to be made after having been satisfied about the materials placed before the Registrar in order to enable him to exercise his power under Section 25 (1) of the Act. He cannot mechanically refer the same. Such mechanical reference would not confer jurisdiction on the prescribed authority and as such, the decision is void and without Jurisdiction. He then contends that the petitioner ha...
Smt. Ila Mitra Vs. Justice Amitava Banerji, Retd. Chief Justice, Sole ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2538
D. K. Seth, J.1. In this petition, an award of the Arbitrator dated 19th January, 2000 between S/Shri Ashoke Mitra and Manmohan Mitra on the one hand and S/Shri Aloke Mitra and Deepak Mitra in Re Mitra Prakashan Ltd., Maya Press Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad has since been challenged.2. Mr. Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petition contends that the petitioner, a shareholder of the company was not a party to the arbitration proceeding and. therefore, by virtue of the award. her right cannot be affected. By elaborating his submission, he contended that in the award, the entire management has been changed. The existing Directors were divested of their right and the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounts Officer were appointed and they are not permitted to take directions from the Directors and the Directors were directed not to interfere with their day to day working. Thus, the petitioner has right to get the company managed through an elected Board under the Companies Act. which has ...
Adarsh Gahmar Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. the Labour Court, U.P., V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2684; [2000(86)FLR859]; (2000)3UPLBEC2213
D. K. Seth, J. 1. Shri M. A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondentNos. 2 and 3 has filed this application for vacating the stay order dated 3.11.1999 on the ground that Initially no stay was granted in this case but later on stay was granted. The second ground is that the petitioner despite the award has not fulfilled his obligation under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the writ petition is not maintainable and as such no stay could continue. The third ground is that the Interim order was ex parte and that the respondent workmen have filed their counter-affidavit and had pointed out that on merit no stay could have been issued.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand opposes the said prayer on various grounds.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.4. Admittedly, an interim order was granted at a later stage, might be ex parte. but the same cannot be a ground unless it is shown that passing of the said order is not Justifie...
Kumar Brick Works and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2853
R. K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner, Kumar Brick Works through its partner Sri Laxman Das and Laxman Das himself, have filed this petition for quashing the directions contained in the letter dated 7.2.1998 issued by the prescribed authority, Mines and Minerals, Barellly, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and the letter dated 16.2.1998, issued by the Mining Inspector, Office of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Mining Section, Bareilly, respondent No. 3 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The petitioners have further prayed for issuing direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for not causing any interference in the smooth preparation of the brick over plot No. 302 and in operating the brick kiln in village Ghanghora Ghanghori and also not to stop the minor mining and preparation ofbrick and further to renew the permit of the petitioners for the said purpose for the coming financial year on payment of royalty and fee.2. The petitioner No. 1, Kumar ...
Dulare Pasi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4695
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals No. 1799 of 1980 and 2022 of 1980 arise out of a common judgment and order dated 14-8-1980 passed by Sri B.B. Singh, v. Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 326 of 1978. Appellant Dulare Pasi in Criminal Appeal No. 1799 of 1980 was convicted under Section 302/109, I.P.C. and appellant Sheo Mohan Pasi in Criminal Appeal No. 2022 of 1980 was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that a civil suit was pending between the parties over the demolition of unauthorised construction raised over the impugned land. Both the parties were asserting their possession. That suit was decreed against the appellants: The decree was also got satisfied by demolition of the unauthorised construction with the help on police on 17-7-J976 by Chhedi Lal and his brother Rameshwar. Serious cracks in the relation between the parties due to the said litigation develo...
Uma Shankar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4689
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate.2. The applicant is said to have killed the victim by firing at him from a close range while the victim was in his house. The incident is said to have occurred around 5.00 p.m.3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report is ante-timed and the applicant has been falsely nominated in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards certain discrepancies in the FIR and other police papers. He points out that in the FIR the place of occurrence is stated to be the house of the victim in village Lohagara whereas in police papers it is stated to be village Jaggi Ka Pura hamlet of village Lohgara. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, according to the FIR is 6 kms. whereas in the inquest report it is shown to be 7 kms. The name of the assailant in the site plan is shown to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »