Allahabad Court October 2001 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.
Chinta and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2067
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal was preferred by Chinta, Ram Saroj and Gyan Das against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and six month's R.I. in the abovesaid two counts by the Sessions Judge, Basti.2. The deceased Jamil Ahmad was a Clerk with an Advocate in the Court at Basti. He had litigation with the appellants of this appeal on some landed property. The date fixed in the case was 22-7-1980. Deceased Jamil Ahmad along with his brother P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar, his mother P.W. 2 Smt. Jumratan and P.w. 6 Jalis Khan were going to Jaunpur on 21-7-1980 to attend the case. At about 10.00 A.M. when they reached near Muniwa Ghat they were accosted by the four accused persons, the three appellants and Vishwanath, who died during trial. They were lying in wait in nearby Munja bushes. Seeing the deceased along with his mother and brother coming towards them they pounced upon him. They st...
Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3032; (2002)1UPLBEC705
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8483 of 1993, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy in view of the Full Bench's decision in the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 898.2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Legal Assistant on 4.12.1988 in Nawabganj Sugar Mill Company Limited, district Gonda, a unit wholly owned and controlled by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Subsequently vide order dated 6.7.1989, he was transferred to Shahganj Sugar Mills, i.e., another unit owned by the Corporation. His services were confirmed by the Corporation vide order dated 5.7.1990. It appears that the appellant-writ petitioner absented himself from dut...
State of U.P. Through Director, Tribal Development Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC590
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. We are of the view that sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay of 66 days in preferring the special appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, stands allowed.2. We have heard Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant State of U.P.3. This special appeal which arises at the instance of State of U.P. is directed against an order allowing the writ petition whereby the termination of the writ petitioner respondent herein was kept in abeyance. Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the appointment of the petitioner respondent herein being illegal, his service were rightly terminated and as such, the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition is not sustainable.4. It is the admitted position that no counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition Therefore, the allegations contained in the writ petition stand uncontroverted. ...
Anurag Pathak Vs. High Court of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3045
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, an advocate, practising in Allahabad High Court, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring Section 35(2) of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, as ultra vires of the Constitution, and (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring the power of the Chief Justice under Section 35 (2) of the Act to be judicial in nature and further that the Chief Justice should exercise the power of grant of certificate after hearing the parties who invoke such jurisdiction and after recording reasons and that too only in exceptional cases.2. The Parliament enacted the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for reorganistion of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. The Act cameinto force on August 25, 2000 and the 'appointed d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›