Allahabad Court July 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.
Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC337
Pradeep Kant, J. 1. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged.2. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally.3. The petitioner Santosh Kumar Misra applied for being appointed in the Department of Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on compassionate ground as his father Sheetla Prasad while in service in the said department died in-harness on 1.4.1999. The petitioner's father Sheetla Prasad was engaged as a daily wager on a muster roll with effect from 15.6.1986 and was allotted the work of Chowkidar. He continuously worked as Chowkidar as a muster roll employee and later on in pursuance of the scheme as enumerated in the case of Raj Narain Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 473, his services were converted into that of a work charge employee on 13.8.1997. Sheetla Prasad (since deceased) continued to work upto 31.3.1999.4. Thus, it is the admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner's fath...
Thakur Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ131
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. Head Sri Veer Singh for the applicants in revision and the learned A. G. A. for the State.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-4-2001 summoning the applicants as accused under Section 420/467/471/379, I. P. C., P. S. Kotwali City, district Bijnor. It has been prayed that the order of summoning be quashed. It is well settled that in revision order of summoning can be quashed only on limited grounds namely :(1) where the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any criminal offence;(2) where the allegations made in the complaint and evidence adduced in support thereof are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent and reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based ...
Ram Lochan and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4425
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri H.K. Sharma for the applicants in revision, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar for the complainant opposite party No. 3.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 166/99 State v. Ram Chandra whereby the application of complainant moved under Section 319, Cr. P.C. has been allowed and the applicant has been summoned as accused in addition to the accused who is already facing trial. learned Counsel for the complainant has filed certified copy of the order sheet of the aforesaid trial. Along with the memo of revision the applicant has also filed certified copy of the application moved by complainant purporting to be under Section 319, Cr. P.C. This application is dated 11-1-2001. There is an endorsement of A.D.G.C. (Cri), 'Filed by State.' Then beneath this order of learned Sessions Judge runs as follows :Allowed.Summon the accused.3. There is yet anot...
Oswal Fats and Oil Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Bareilly ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2248
R. R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sankatha Rai at length.2. Perused the order dated 30.5.2001, passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the order dated 24.5.1993, passed by Collector, Pilibhit (Annexurc-2 to the writ petition), whereby both the courts below have passed orders making petitioner company entitled up to 12.50 acres land in Uttar Pradesh and the excess of 12.50 acres land have been declared to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner and Collector, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have based their findings on the affidavit of Sri T. R. Sharma, General Manager of the Company dated 19.5.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), but neither Sri T. R. Sharma has any authority of the Company under resolution dated 14.10.1991 passed by the Board of Directors of the Company (A...
RiyazuddIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3907
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the State.2. The present criminal misc. application has been filed Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have prayed for quashing the order dated 12-12-2000 passed by the Vllth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 443/99 State v. Fida Husain Under Section 304, I.P.C. Police Station Bilhore, District Kanpur Dehat and direct the Court below (Trial Court) to permit the applicants to recall and cross-examine the witnesses of fact PW 2 Zamil Ahmad and PW 4 Zalaluddin. It has further been prayed that this Court be pleased to stay further proceeding in Sessions Trial No. 443/99 (State v. Fida Husain) pending before the Vllth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of the present application. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider and appreciate that the necessary docume...
ishtiyaq Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3906
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant in revision and the learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 4-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 12), Azamgarh dismissing the application to release the vehicle (Truck No. U.P. 42-B-7671) in his favour.3. The vehicle in question was seized by the police in case crime No. 224 of 2001, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Phoolpur, district Azamgarh. The seizure was reported to the Court below. The applicant claiming himself to be registered owner of the said vehicle moved an application for releasing the said vehicle in his interim custody. That application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the truck owner has not produced the driver in the Court and since the driver was still absconding, there was no justificatio...
Jadish Singh Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC613
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Government Advocate.2. The above criminal revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer/Judge Family Court in Case No. 1370 of 1995, Smt. Anita v. Jagdish, which was preferred under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. Smt. Anita filed this application alleging that after marriage the family members of her husband including father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as elder brother of her husband were demanding money and T.V. and other materials in lieu of dowry. Smt. Anita has also made allegations that she had been beaten and had been ousted on 21st February, 1995 from the house of her husband. Since then she is living with her parents' house. Smt. Anita has also alleged that her Jtusband is involved in jewellery-making business as such his monthly income is about Rs. 5,000/- per month,...
Abdul Muid Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2227
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashingthe order dated 23.8.1983 whereby an area measuring 7.06 acres of the petitioner's holding situated at Balrampur, district Gonda was declared as surplus by the prescribed authority at Najibabad. district Bijnor and the order dated 27.10.1983, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act).3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was in the year 1976, a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority, Najibabad in which the total holding of the petitioner was shown as 27.09 acres in terms of irrigated l...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subhash Chand Goyal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR728(All); [2001]119TAXMAN400(All)
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, has filed the present application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the following two questions of law for opinion to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment orders in relation to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 are clearly beyond the period of limitation especially when the period from January 1, 1990, being the date of filing the settlement petition to August 6, 1991,being the date of receipt of order under Section 245DD by the Commissioner of Income-tax will have to be excluded and after such exclusion the time available for assessment was up to November 5, 1992 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that ...
Brijesh Kumar Vs. Collector/District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2544
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.Petition is being decided finally at the admission stage as contemplated under Rules of Court without calling for counter-affidavit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 7.7.2001 (Anncxurc-5 to the Writ Petition) whereby his services as Seasonal Collection Amin have been determined by the Tehsildar, Karhal (Mainpuri) with the effect from the date of the order. The said order shows that petitioner was appointed/continued as Seasonal Collection Amin w.e.f. 19th June. 2001 under High Court order dated 25.1.2001 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition).3. The imugned order does not disclose the period till which he was assigned target of particular collection and the actual period available to him for achieving the said target. Apart from the above, it may be noted that mere non-achieving of target for c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »