Allahabad Court February 2001 Judgments
Nanha Pahalwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3361
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 20-11-2000 under the N.S.A. (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Several arguments have been raised before us but in our opinion one argument is itself suijficient for this petition to succeed, that is, that it is a case of breach of law and order and not public order. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 4 to the petition) shows that the dead body of one Pintoo was found and a case under Section 302 was registered It is very significant that the petitioner was not named in the FIR (copy of which is Annexure 1). The distinction between law and order and public order is well known as it has been discussed in a large number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and this Court. It is well settled that a detention order can be passed not for breach of law and order but for the breach of public order vide State of U.P. v. Hari Shankar Tiwari AI...
Tag this Judgment!Naim Khan (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ali Sher
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All168
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Ali Sher, plaintiff, wasthe owner of the disputed agricultural land.He executed the sale deed of the said land infavour of Naim Khan on 1-9-1970. Thepresent appellants are the heirs of Naim Khan. An agreement of repurchase of theproperty on payment of Rs. 12,000/- wasexecuted on 4-9-1970. Both the documentswere registered on the same day i.e. 20-10-1970. In pursuance of the agreement of repurchase the appellant Naim Khan did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the respondent Ali Sher filed the Suit for specific performance of contract for repurchase, dated 4-9-1970. In the Suit he made necessary allegations that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also alleged that he is still in the possession of the land in dispute. 2. The appellant contested the Suit. However, he did not dispute the execution of sale deed and the agreement of the repurchase. On the other hand he contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sahdev Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR434]; (2001)1UPLBEC865
Markandey Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. The petitioner was a police constable. He was appointed on 3 1,1.1976 and was confirmed on that post. In the night of 25.1.1993 he was found having consumed liquor. He was charge- sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. His appeal was also rejected and his claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence this petition.2. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the petitioner has stated that he has nothing to say in his defence nor he has to produce any witness but he has prayed for forgiveness and assured that he will not commit such act again in future. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken against the petitioner and some lessor punishment should be given to him. As Portia said in Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice', Justice should be tempered with mercy. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that although the petitioner does d...
Tag this Judgment!Dulia Devi Vs. Dulia Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All195
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. This revision under Section 115, C.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 8-10-1999 passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh, VIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Succession Appeal No. 204 of 1998.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :The applicant moved an application for issue of succession certificate regarding the estate of her husband claiming herself to be widow of Panna Lal, who was the employee of Railway. The opposite parties filed objections alleging that the applicant is not the widow of Panna Lal. On the other hand, the opposite parties are the widow and son of Panna Lal. Therefore, they requested that the application for issue of succession certificate of the applicant be rejected and the succession certificate be issued in their favour.3. The learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) , Varanasi decided the matter and found that the applicant is not the widow of Panna Lal. He further held that the opposite parties are legal ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1659
V.M. Sahai, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Yadav the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinay Upadhyaya the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 3 is only a formal party and this petition can be decided in absence of respondent No. 3. Therefore, no notice is issued to respondent No. 3 and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 2000. On 27th March, 2000 while appearing in Chemistry II paper, he was caught by flying squad using unfair means. In his reply the petitioner clearly stated that no incriminating material was recovered from his possession and the flying squad took away the copy of the petitioner and asked him for another copy. It has been further stated in his reply that the invigilator reported that the incriminating material was found in the ventilator of the room. There was no material to connect the petitioner with ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar Havelia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1108
I. M. Quddusi, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 12.9.1994 passed by the Judge Small CausesCourt (14th Additional District Judge) in Small Causes Suit Wo. 29 of 1991. Rameshwar Havelia v. U. P. Cooperative Bank Ltd., by means of which the learned court below passed order on the application of the revisionist (Application No. Ga 14) for providing benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act. No. 13 of 1972) to the effect that the application shall be decided along with final decision of the case and allowing application (Ga 76) of the opposite party by which the opposite party has raised objection to the effect that the revisionist is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground that he has not deposited the entire amount, as also the water and house tax, and the deposits which was made und...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Dhari Vs. Ivth Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1581; (2001)2UPLBEC1472
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.1986 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the appeal was allowed and the objection filed bythe petitioner purporting to be under Order 21. Rule 90 has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 145 of 1975 against the petitioner for recovery of money on the basis of pronote. The property belonging to the petitioner was attached before the judgment on 3.4.1975. The suit was decreed on 31.7.1978 for recovery of Rs, 4.600 against the petitioner.3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for execution of decree on 24.3.1981. The executing court issued proclamation of sale under Order XXI. Rule 66 of Code of Civil Procedure on 13.4.1981. The attached property was sold in auction on 15.5.1982.4. The petitioner filed an objection 11C praying for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale. The executing court rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR338]; (2001)1UPLBEC862
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 transferring the petitioners from Civil Police to Armed Police.2. The petitioners were appointed as Constables (Civil Police) on 4.6.1992. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were transferred from Civil Police to Armed Policy by respondent No. 2 on 30.3.1993 and petitioner No. 3 was transferred from Civil Police to Armed Police on 30.8.1994. They were transferred to Civil Police from Armed Police on 30.1.2001. They have been again transferred to Armed Police by respondent No. 2 on 8.2.2001 in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order of transfer does not specify the period for which they have been transferred and unless such period is specified, the order of transfer is illegal. The Superintendent of Police is given power of transfer of a Police Constable from Armed Police to Civil Police o...
Tag this Judgment!Sartaj Mohammad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2823
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-7-1980 passed by Sri V.K. Sircar, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 286 of 1997, whereby appellant Sartaj Mohammad has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. Appellants Vakilwa, Lal Mohammad and Imamuddin have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Appellants Sartaj Mohammad, Lal Mohammad and Imamuddin have also been convicted and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Appellant Vakilwa is further convicted and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 324 I.P.C. Appellants Lal Mohammad and Imamuddin have further been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 read with 34 I.P.C. However, Sartaj Mohammad and Vakilwa have been acquitted f...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2490
J.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1981 passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Non-metropolitan Area, Kanpur is sessions trial No, 495 of 1998 whereby appellant No. 11 Raja Ram has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., 3 years R. I. under Section 148 I.P.C., one year R.I. under S. 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 3 years R.I. under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C.2. Appellant No. 10 Dashrath has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C, 3 years R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C, one year R.I. under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and 3 years R.I. under Section 324/149 I.P.C.Appellant No. 3-Gyan Singh has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. 3 years R.I. under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C.3. Rest of the appellants, Hari Lal, Bhoora, Ram Narain, Kham Raj, Ranjeet, Ram Roop, Shyam Sundar and Sheo Nath...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »