Allahabad Court September 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.
Shiv Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ608
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal by three appellants, namely Shiv Prasad Sadhu Saran and Tarkeshwar, arises against their conviction and consequent sentence under Section 392 read with Section 397, I.P.C. to 7 years R.I. passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, on 22-9-1980.2. The brief facts of the case are that the informant along with his Phuwa, Smt. Genda Devi started from her Sasural (in-laws house), village Dugduiya, P.S. Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur to her parental house situated in village Karaunda, P.S. Bakhira, District Basti. He was walking on foot with his Phuwa from Newasey crossing. When he reached near Karaunda Pokhar (Pond) at about 8.30 p.m., three persons accosted them. They are appellants abovesaid. They had taken away the Jewellery and the clothes that this Phuwa was possessing on the strength of knife and Katta. The incident was witnessed by Ajay son of Satyanarayan, Kuber son of Ramroop, Ram Niwas Pathak son of Jamuna and Sadhu Saran Singh son of Pashupat...
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3200A; [2001(91)FLR1138]; (2002)1UPLBEC75
S.K. Singh, J.1. The U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has come up to this Court against the award dated 29.8.1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) given by the Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra/respondent No. 1.2. The facts, in order to decide rival claims, travel in a narrow compass. Petitioner, in order to provide security to the residential colony meant for the petitioner's employees made advertisement requiring some security personnel upon which a contract was given to M/s. Industrial Security Service of Allahabad/respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the I.S.S.). In respect to the agreement for providing security staff for the residential colony, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the I.S.S. on September 12, 1988. Initially, the contract was for a period of six months but thereafter by further agreement dated October 7, 1989, it was extended for a further period of one year. Both the agreements dated September 12, 1988 and Oc...
Bans Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2833
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment of the respondent No. 1 dated 30.4.1992 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Ram Ujagir Singh and Jagannath filed suit No. 665 of 1970 for relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 7.7.1990 executed by the plaintiff No. 2 Jagannath Singh in favour of present three petitioners, viz.. Bans Raj Singh and two others. Bans Raj Singh and Baij Nath filed separate written statements. On the basis of the compromise dated 16/17.5.1985, a com-promise decree was passed on 17.5.1985 by the trial court. It is said that Bans Raj Singh did not sign the compromise at all. After the aforesaid compromise decree, Bans Raj Singh, petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. to set aside the compromise decree dated 17.5.1985.1116 trial court allowed the aforesaid application of the petitioner vide his order dated 20.4.1991 and cancelled the compromise decree. Against the aforesaid order of the ...
Devendra Kumar Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judl.), Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2871
S. K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgments as passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 29.4.1992 and 29.2.1992 as contained in Annexures-5 and 4 to the writ petition respectively.2. The proceeding under Section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was started against the petitioner. By notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, an area of 2.522-hectare land was proposed to be surplus.3. The petitioner filed objection mainly on three grounds :(i) the land of Neeraj Kumar has been illegally clubbed with the holdings of the petitioner. Neeraj Kumar inherited the land from his grandfather Sita Ram, the original tenure holder by means of registered Will dated 13.8.1975 and, therefore, he will be deemed to be exclusive owner of the said land.(ii) the land belonging to Smt. Rajeshwari Devi should be separated while, determining land as surplus as judicial separation was grante...
Shiv Nathi Vs. Raj Deo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2863
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought relief of quashing the judgment and order dated 27.10.1988 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Allahabad.2. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad against Pachai, the father of the petitioner, the petitioner, her mother Smt. Kaushalya and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell said to have beenexecuted in her favour by Pachat. The aforesaid suit was contested by Pachal and other defendants. The execution of agreement to sell was denied. The trial court dismissed the suit but the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed by the lower appellate court. Against the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the mother of petitioner Smt. Kaushalya filed second appeal before this Court which was registered as Second Appeal No. 165 of 1979. T...
Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2965; (2002)1UPLBEC22
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court (1) Kanpur, dated 9.8.1990 passed in Adjudication Case No. 153 of 1986 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). 2. Respondent No. 3 Keshav Kumar Tandan was appointed on daily wage as Peon in the petitioner's Bank initially for a fixed period upto 31.3.1984 by appointment letter dated 2.2.1984. In pursuance of that appointment letter dated 2.2.1984, respondent No. 3 submitted his joining report on 4.2.1984. The appointment letter dated 2.2.1984 and the joining as was submitted by the respondent No. 3 has been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. In the joining as has been submitted by the respondent No. 3 dated 4.2.1984, he specifically states ^^eq>s mijksDr vkns'k esa ykxw leLr lsok 'krsZeatwj gSaA** After 31.3.1984 respondent No. 3 was again appointed vide letter dated 16/19th November, 1984 for a period upto December 31, 1984 and again appointment was given to the res...
Kunwar Pal Singh Rathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3104
O.P. Garg, J. 1. Kunwar Pal Singh Rathi claiming himself to be a media person has brought, in public interest, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs : '(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing a thorough investigation in the 'Ambedkar Park' project through an independent investigating agency on the basis of the prima facie offences disclosed in thereport dated 17.5.1999 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition) of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India against the High-profile personalities of the State as per the procedure of investigation and submission of charge-sheet under the Court monitoring laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 225, and in the case of Union of India v. S.K. Modi and Ors., (1974) 4 SCC 770. or In case the State police has proceeded with some investigation in the 'Ambedkar Park' project, then further investiga...
Satyendra Kumar Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC308
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is an application for review of the Judgment dated 10.1.2000 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1999.2. I have heard parties' counsel.3. Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record Justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise' as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a ruling in Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi. 1997 SCC 715.4. By the present review application, the applicant seeks to review my regular judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1999 (S/S) and the g...
Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC328
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. The petitioner claims himself to be a free lance Journalist and has approached this Court through this writ petition, in the form of Pubic Interest Litigation and prays that opposite parties be directed to place the entire records with respect to sale of old Aircrafts and purchase of the new Aircrafts in the year 1989 in Civil Aviation Department, before this Court in a sealed cover including the proceedings showing the action, if any. taken after the judgment and order dated 2.2.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 338 (MB) of 2001. Ashish Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., and further it has been prayed that opposite parties be commanded to hold an enquiry about the deal relating to sale of old Aircrafts and purchase of the new Aircrafts in the year 1989 through an independent agency preferably by C.B.I.2. This is the fourth writ petition on the same subject-matter. Accordingly, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel regarding ma...
Jeet Bahadur Vs. Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC668
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Petitioner, by means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ. Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.1.1998 (fax) sent by the Deputy Manager (Vigilance), intimating about imposition of penalty of reduction In pay by one stage for two years having no effect in postponing his future increments after expiry of two years and withholding promotion of the petitioner from Technical Assistant Grade II to Technical Assistant Grade I and the detailed order dated 20/21.1.1998 passed by the Zonal Manager (North), imposing the aforesaid penalty. Prayer for a direction not to give effect to the aforesaid orders has also been made.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade III by direct recruitment in the Food Corporation of India. It was on 1.12.1980 that he was promoted to the post o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »