Allahabad Court December 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.
Narendra Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC365; [2002(92)FLR847]; (2002)1UPLBEC369
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order of transfer dated 8.8.2001 by which the petitioner was transferred from district Chandauli to Lucknow and was attached with the office of Transport Commissioner. U. P.2. The petitioner was previously working as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Varanasi but he was transferred to the headquarters at Lucknow on 20.4.2001. On 15.6.2001, he was again transferred as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Chandauli. By the impugned order dated 8.8.2001, he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached to the headquarters.3. Sri. T. P. Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred several times within a brief period which was contrary to the policy and the guidelines laid down by the State Government by the Government Order dated 21.4.2001, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The Government Order lays down the guide...
Maharani Deen Saroj Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1010
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Shyam Narain and learned Standing Counsel.2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.10.99, passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). It appears that in respect of a misconduct, three constables including the petitioner were proceeded in a criminal case in which the all three constables including petitioner were acquitted. The services of the petitioner and other constable was terminated during the pendency of criminal case whereas as third one was placed under suspension. After an enquiry, the suspended constable was reinstated. Petitioner appears to have filed a claim petition against the order of termination, which was rejected by Public Service Tribunal. Petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court against the order of tribunal. In the meantime, the claim of other constables, namely, Rai Singh was al...
Gulab Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1575
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1980 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Sessions Trial no. 119 of 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 364 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :-Satya Prakash deceased (25) was son of Umrao Singh (P.W-.l) an Assistant Driver on Diesel Engine at Moradabad Railway Station and brother of Virendra Pal Singh (P.W. 4). Satya Prakash deceased was serving as Fire Man 'C Grade in the railway department and at the time of occurrence he was posted at railway station Najibabad, district Bijnor. Virendra Pal Singh (P.W.-4) was residing at his native village Kumhar Pura, P.S. Haldaur, district Bijnor.Satya Prakash deceased was married with Smt. Shila Devi (P.W. -3), After marriage of Satya Prakash with Smt. Shila Devi (P.W.-3), he developed illicit relationship with Kamlesh, younger sister of his wife Smt. Shila Dev...
Kari NaimuddIn Vs. Commissioner, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC516
R.R. Zaidi, J.1. Present petition arises out of the proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the judgments and orders dated 15.6.1999 and 4.1.2000 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively.2. It appears that in the mutation proceedings, the petitioner has applied for interim relief. Application for grant of interim relief was rejected by respondent No. 3. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order passed by respondent No. 3. The Commissioner also declined to grant the interim relief. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 8.1.2000with the observation that the revisional court shall endeavour to dispose of the revision finally as early as possible. The Commissioner although did not decide the revision, but rejected the application for interim relief by the impugned order dated 4.1.2000. Hence, the pres...
In Re: Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)1CompLJ274(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This company petition has been filed by Dhandhania Brothers (P.) Ltd., with its registered office at 4, Middleton Street, Ground Floor, Calcutta, for winding up Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd., with its registered office at Somdutt Plaza (11th Floor), the Mall, Kanpur, under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). It is alleged that the company took a loan for Rs. 25 lakhs from the applicant- company. The debt is still due with interest, and at present, a total amount of Rs. 43,15,818 is still due which has not been paid in spite of the reminder and statutory notice. The loan was given to Hostombe Spinals Ltd., 234/3-A, A.C.J. Bose Road, Calcutta, which subsequently merged in Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd, vide order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 27-5-1997 in company petition No. 44 of 1996 connected with Company Petition No. 19 of 1996 by which the interest of the creditors was protected and safeguarded by the as...
Raja Ram Soni Vs. Kanpur Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC254
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The appellant nied a Suit No. 114 of 1999 for injunction against the respondents for restraining them from constructing a commercial complex over plot, bearing No. 207 of Jagannath Mohal at Kohna area, Kanpur city. The appellant also moved an application under Order XXXIX. Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. for temporary Injunction to restrain the respondents from constructing their commercial complex over the disputed plot. The application was opposed by the respondents. The same has been rejected by the order, dated 17.5.2000 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred.2. It is contended that the appellant got the land from Triyugi Narayan Dubey, who has since died ; that he is owner and in possession of the land. The case of the respondents is that they have acquired the land and commercial complex has already been constructed, named ; 'Raina Market' ; that it was completed in the year 1992 consisting of 60 to...
M.M. Accessories and anr. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC242
G. P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for issuance of certain directions to the U. P. Financial Corporation.2. The case set up in the writ petition is that petitioner No. 1 is a firm which was constituted for carrying on business of manufacturing cycle spokes. The petitioners approached the U. P. Financial Corporation (for short, U.P.F.C.) for loan and an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was sanctioned on 24,7.1993 and an additional amount of Rs. 3.80 lakhs was sanctioned on 31.3.1996. The manufacturing unit of the petitioners was closed in 1997. The petitioners made a request to the U.P.F.C. to re-schedule the loan and the said request was accepted and the loan was re-scheduled on 20.4.2000. Sometime thereafter on 24.9.2001, the petitioners made a proposal to the respondents for one-time settlement whereunder they offered to deposit the balance of the principal amount plus 10 percent of the outstanding simple interest. The petitioners also de...
Mahesh Chand Vs. Ajai Sood and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC355
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1986 passed by Smt. Sadhna Chaudhari, J.S.C.C., Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1977.2. The facts of the case are very simple and almost admitted. One Lala Amba Prasad had four sons, namely, Harish Chandra. Suresh Chandra, Mahesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra. Mahesh Chandra filed Original Suit No. 359 of 1958 againsthis father and three brothers for partition of Joint properties consisting of urban property and agricultural land. This suit was decreed on 5.12.1959 in terms of the award accepted by all the parties and the award was made part of the decree. The award also contained a clause that in case any party wanted to transfer property allotted to him, then others will have a preferential right to purchase or a right to preempt the sate.3. Naresh Chandra, respondent No. 3 sold his agricultural land given in his share in the said partition to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by sale deed dated 26...
Haribabu Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2213
ORDERSushil Harkauli, J.1. Persons who have witnessed a crime are extremely reluctant in giving evidence. Prosecution witnesses are turning hostile every day. If the administration of criminal justice is to be saved from total collapse, a drastic change in the mind set is needed for the Judges, lawyers, litigants and the police.2. When a witness comes to depose before the Court in a criminal trial, he is doing public service to the criminal justice system. While the Judge, the lawyer is paid for the time he devotes to litigation and the litigant has a personal interest in the litigation, no remuneration is paid to the witness for his time and effort. He has no personal interest or stake in the litigation. The witness is therefore entitled to receive all respect and protection for doing that service to the society.3. It is essential having regard to reluctance on the part of people to give evidence in the present times, that the police should create a 'witness protection culture' and gi...
Smt. Dhanno Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC408
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring the petitioner's land, be quashed, and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to Interfere in the peaceful user, occupation and possession of the land by the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims that she is recorded owner of plot No. 37, khata No. 122, having an area of 3 bighas and 5 biswas in village Sadarpur, tehsil and pargana Dadri. district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budha Nagar). The State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring large number of plots including the plot in question. The notifications mentioned that the land is being acquired for a public purpose, namely, for planned industrial development in the district of Ghaziabad through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (N.O.I.D.A.) and as the Gove...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »