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.
Babu Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ356
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment and order dated 14-12-1995, passed by Sri S.C. Agarwal, I Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, and convicting and sentencing him to eight years' R.I. under Section 376, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 200 of 1994.2. The brief facts of the case are that the minor daughter of the informant Girja Devi, viz. Km. Kalli, had gone to the house of the appellant to play with his younger niece, aged about 3/4 years. It is alleged that the appellant had sent his niece out of the house and detained Kalli inside. He, thereafter, attempted to commit rape on her (Kalli). When the appellant was in the midst of the process the poor child started crying due to extreme pain, which attracted her mother to the spot. Seeing her mother approaching his house, the appellant ran away leaving the injured, hapless victim, inside his house. On enquiry by her mother, Kalli communicated to her that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse w...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanhoomal Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: III(2002)ACC663
Sudhir Narain and Krishna Kumar, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order (award) dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge, Aligarh) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 79 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- along with interest to the claimant-respondent.2. The Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid compensation because of the injuries received by the claimant-respondent on various counts.3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent raised a legal objection that the appellant being the insurer, can only raise pleas, in the petition as well as in the appeal, which were available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the appellant cannot argue for reduction in the compensation allowed because this plea was not covered under Section 149 of the Act.4. Taking...
Shri Hathiya Ram Math and Another Vs. Bhawani Nandan Yati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2577
D.K. Seth, J.1. This application for review has been filed against an order dated December 17, 1999. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50699 of 1997. Original Suit No. 351 of 1977 was filed by the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge, Ghaztpur. In connection with the said Suit, an application for Injunction was moved which was allowed by the learned trial Judge by an order dated 29th September, 1997. Against which an appeal No. 22 of 1997 was filed. In appeal the order of the learned trial court was reversed by an order dated 26th November, 1999. Against this order, the Writ Petition No. 50699 of 1999 was moved. Now review is being sought against the said order dated December 17, 1999 dismissing the writ petition.2. Mr. L. P. Nalthani, learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition as well as in the review application contends that there is an error apparent on the face of the record due to which this order should be reviewed to the extent that it Is a sound propo...
Amol Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2571; [2000(86)FLR768]; (2000)3UPLBEC2282
D. K. Seth, J.1. The father of the petitioner died on August 13. 1991. Mr. I. N. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at that point of time, the petitioner was minor and aged about 11 years. He attained majority in 1998. Upon attainment of majority, he applied for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The Dying-in-Harness Rules has been provided for saving a family of a deceased from immediate destitution. Such a position cannot be expected to continue till for 10 years. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim any relief.2. Mr. I. N. Singh relied upon the decision in the case of Manoj Kumar Saxena v. District Magistrate, Bareilly and others. 2000 (2) ESC 967 (All), in which the delay of 12 years was overlooked relying on the decision cited therein. One of the decisions that was cited was that of Pushpendra Singh v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC. Aligarh. 2000 (1) ESC 448 (All). But it appears that in the case of Pushpendra Singh (supra), the Division Be...
Ram Devi (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and Another Vs. District Magistrate, Ma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2570
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and S. K. Jain,JJ.1. The petitioners have come up with two prayers (i) to command respondent Nos. 4 to 12 not to install the statue of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on their chaks (the land which was allotted to them in the consolidation proceedings) and (ii) to command respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take suitable action in accordance with law against the aforementioned respondents who forcibly want to install the statue on their lands.2. The petitioners assert, inter alia, that plot No. 230 is their bhumidhari of which no portion was taken out for any public purpose ; on their said plot their boring is situated, which fact was taken into account by the consolidation authorities while allotting chaks to them ; respondent Nos. 4 to 12, who are connected with the local Bahujan Samaj Party, Illegally and with a mala fide intention want to Install the statue of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on their lands ; the petitioners metrespondent No. 3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Vrindavan,...
Ganesh International and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]124STC600(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The controversy in the present case is in a short compass. The petitioners are partnership firms, which deal with non-ferrous metal scraps of various kinds. The liability under Section 3-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the sales was 4 per cent in view of the notification dated September 7, 1981 (annexure 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter by a subsequent Notification dated October 1, 1983 there were two categories of goods--for the first, i.e., all kinds of minerals the rate was 4 per cent and for all kinds of metal scraps it was 2 per cent. By another notification dated June 30, 1990 the first category was continued at the rate of 4 per cent, but there was no mention about the rate of tax of the second category. By corrigendum dated October 23, 1990 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) it was provided that the rate of tax on metal scrap will be 4 per cent.3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the period from ...
Mangat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1UPLBEC713
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar, holding brief of Shri Ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel of the petitioner and Shri K.M. Sahai, the learned Standing Counsel of the State of U.P. representing the respondents.2. The petitioner who belonged to the cadre of Uttar Pradesh State Education Services retired as District Inspector of Schools on 30th June, 1992. His grievance is that he is not being granted retiral benefits by way of gratuity and pension..3. On 8th January, 1998 while entertaining the petition, the Court direction the respondents to grant to the petitioner the retiral benefits or show-cause within two months.4. In response to the order of the Court dated 8th January, 1998 the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, after serving a copy thereof on the Counsel of the petitioner on 15th April, 1998 showing cause for not granting the retiral benefits to the petitioner.5. Despite lapse of more than two years of the service of the copy of the counter-affidavit, the petition...
Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ313
S.R. Singh, J.1. The first information report dated 6-8-1998 on the basis of which case crime No. 743 of 1998 under Section 406/420 IPC has been registered at police station Chakeri, district Kanpur Nagar is sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the case aforestated during the course of investigation has also been sought besides the relief of certiorari.2. Concededly the impugned F.I.R. has been registered pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) directing the police to register and investigate the case. At the very outset a question arose as to whether the writ petition for quashing the impugned F.I.R. sans any challenge to the order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. passed by the Magistrate is maintainable. Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the order under Section 156(3) ...
Bismilla Idrisi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ331
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.2. I have perused the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai dated 30-6-1984 and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the above said order.3. It has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the applicant that the act of the applicant is squarely covered by the provision of Section 197, Cr.P.C. For ready reference the provision is being quoted as under :When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction -(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the...
Ram Prakash and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4525
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. I have also perused the order of the trial Court summoning the applicants under Section 319, Cr.P.C. This summoning was made by the trial Court under Section 307, IPC. after recording statement of two of the eyewitnesses as well as the Medical Officer. In the opinion of the trial Court the evidence was sufficient enough to warrant the summoning of these applicants to stand their trial. On merit I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Manipuri.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that initially a charge-sheet was submitted only against principal accused, Girish. These applicants were attributed only the role of exhortation and firing without causing any injury upon the victim of the incident. The final report was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned despite presence of a protest petition the protest petition too was rejected. Theref...