Allahabad Court February 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.
Jai Prakash Agrawal Vs. Arjun Kumar Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1308
B. K. Rathi, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree, dated 24.8.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2000 Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Arjun Kumar Agarwal.2. I have heard Sri M. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant andSri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :The Suit No. 12 of 1998 was filed by the opposite party against Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, father of the appellant. The Suit was decreed for eviction from the shop in dispute and recovery of rent. The decree holder moved an application for execution. The appellant filed objections under Section 151, C.P.C. that the decree has been obtained by fraud. That the judgment debtor is not the tenant of the disputed shop. On the other hand, the appellant has contended that he is the tenant of the shop that, therefore, the decree cannot he executed against the appellant. It was further pleaded that the appellant has also filed a Suit No. 3...
Dharam NaraIn Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)1UPLBEC668
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The contention or the petitioner is that he was appointed on adhoc basis CT. Grade in Lala Manmohan Das Inter College, Jhusi, Allahabad, on 8.1.86, which appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. He is working continuously since then. He is entitled for being proceed in L.T. Grade under the relevant Government Order issued by the State Government in this behalf and the provisions of Section 33-D of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982. The Joint Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad, has written to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders. However, nothing has been done so far by the District Inspector of Schools. Vide order dated 4.4.2000 this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to file counter- affidavit within one month. About eight months have passed out no counter- affidavit has been filed so far.2. Taking into consideration the ent...
Rahmat Ali Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2873
Markandey Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Heard Shri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 16-8-2000. Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition passed under The National Sectionrity Act.3. We have carefully perused the impugned detention order as well as the grounds of detention of the petitioner and the police report. It appears that the petitioner is a resident of a village in district Basti having majority of Muslims and only a few houses of Harijans. The allegation is that on 24-7-2000 at about 8 P.M. Kumari Kiran, who is a Harijan of that village, had taken a goat and went inside a room to tie the said goat. At that time the petitioner entered the room and bolted it from inside and after threatening Kumari Kiran raped her. It is alleged that Kumari Kiran was about 14 years of age. Some people tried to intervene when Kumari Kiran started screaming and these persons caught...
Moreshwar Savey and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1765
ORDERJagdish Bhalla, J.1. All the above revisions are directed against the same order dated 9th September, 1997 passed by the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow for framing charges against the revisionists, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1997 (Moreshwar Savey v. State of U.P. and another) the revisionist is to be charged with offences punishable Under Sections 147, 153A, 153B, 295, 295A, 505 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.).3. In Criminal Revision No. 201 of 1997 (Ms. Uma Bharti alias Gajra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another) revisionists Nos. 1, 3 to 10 are to be charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 153A, 153B, 295, 295A, 505 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. Revisionist No. 2 is to be charged with offences punishable under Sections 332, 338, 201, read with Sections 149/395 and Section 120B, I.P...
Chandra Prakash Misra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC857; (2001)1UPLBEC904
ORDERM. Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have alleged that they were higher in the select list of the P.C.S. Examination of 1992 but they have not been given appointment, although, the persons who are below in merit in the select list have been given appointment. This fact has not been disputed by Sri A. Kumar, who has appeared on behalf of the three persons who are lower in merit and have been given appointment and are working.3. Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the petitioners in this writ petition did not file writ petition in the year 1996 when the result was declared, still they could not have been ignored. However, the Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka and others. (1992) 1 SCC 28, has observed 'learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than th...
Dr. Brij Mohan Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1199; (2001)2UPLBEC1806
Pradeep Kant, J.1. The petitioners, who belong to the Scheduled Castes category and have successfully completed their M.B.B.S. course, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for fixing 25 per cent marks as minimum qualifying marks for the U. P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination. 2000.2. The laying down of qualifying marks for the U. P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination has been the subject-matter of controversy even in previous years and is in litigation this year also. The recommendations made by the Medical Council of India and the directions issued by the Court have not yet been able to satisfy some of the candidates in respect of fixation of qualifying marks. The maintenance of high standards particularly in science and professional knowledge like medical profession, giving a chance to the most talented and meritorious students, and selecting the most meritorious candidates and maintaining efficiency in administration or some, ou...
Committee of Management and ors. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1314
Pradeep Kant, J.1. This petition has been filed by the alleged Committee of Management, Sukhnadan Prasad Panday Sarvajanik Intermediate College, alongwith D.P. Insan and Mata Din Mishra, who claim themselves to be the President and the Manger of the Institution. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the order dated 26.5.2000 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition and also for issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restrain the opposite parties from interfering in the working of the petitioners 2 and 3 as President and the Manager of the Institution.2. Ram Kripal Pandey has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 who claims himself to be the validly elected President of the Committee of the Management of the college. Sri S.P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel Sri L.P. Mishra, for respondents raised very lengthy arguments in support of their respective claims denying the right of the other party to manage the affairs of the instit...
Smt. Chandania Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC839; 2001CriLJ2090
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to command the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation on account of her husband's custodial death.2. A portrayal of relevant facts are in a narrow compass. On 12th April, 1994, Duli Chandra, aged about 42 years and the sole earning member of his family, and a Scheduled Caste having his wife-the petitioner and four sons Kamlesh, LalBabu, Shyam Babu and Gyan Chandra. went to police station Giwan, Banda. to lodge an information against his co-villager Budhwa in regard to some land dispute which had taken on that very day. Far from registering the first information, he was severely beaten by Ram Vraksh Singh Yadav. the station house officer of police station Girwan and Subcdar Pal, the head constable respectively as a result of which he became unconscious and was thrown out of the police station. When his condition deteriorated, he was taken to the hospital at Barokhar. The petitioner'...
Jitendra Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. State of Transport Authority, Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC865
S. K. Sen, C.J. and S. Rafat Alam, J.1. We have heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. C. S. Singh, learned standing counsel. In our view, the State Transport Authority was not justified in passing the impugned order directing that the matter relates to the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority. In this connection, sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, may be taken note of which reads as under : '103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings.--(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme any State transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the...
Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur Education Society and anr. Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All196; (2001)1UPLBEC915
ORDER1. We have heard Sri AroopBanerjee, learned counsel for the petitionersand Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learnedAdditional Chief Standing Counsel for therespondent.2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners claim that it is a recognized educational institution and as such the provision for permit under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the 'Act') is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Section 66(3)(h) of the Act specifically mentions the category of the transport vehicle for which permit shall not be required. Section 66(1) and 66(3)(h) of the Act provides as under :66. Necessity for permits--(1), No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »