Allahabad Court November 2002 Judgments
Ganga Ram and ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC447
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel and perused the record including the original answer script of the candidates/petitioners. 2. The petitioners Ganga Ram, Narendra Singh and Omvir Singh respectively filed the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of cancelling their High School result vide order dated 7.2.1997 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/U. P. Board authorities and the Principal of the Institution to declare their High School Examination, 1996, result.3. By means of the earlier order passed by this Court, U. P. Board was required to produce original scripts in question.4. It appears that the result of the petitioners was not declared on the ground of mass copying or, in other words, on suspicion of copying/ use of unfair means by certain candidates in the Examination Hall. 5. Without going into the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Shatrughan Singh Vs. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1053; [2003(96)FLR705]
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Since pure question of law is to be adjudicated, it is not necessary to call for counter-affidavit in the present petition for adjudication. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned, which is an order of suspension, has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 10A of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, U. P., 1932 (in short 'Rules 1932'). The order impugned in this petition dated 23rd October, 2002, is attached as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Sri Asthana further contended that Rule 3 (iv) of the aforesaid Rules defines 'appointing authority' means, the 'Commissioner' (Food and Civil Supplies) U. P., Lucknow. Learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2287
M.C. Jain, J.1. As many as 24 persons were tried in Sessions Trial No. 627 of 1983. State v. Harish Chandra and 23 others in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. All of them came to be convicted and sentenced variously (as would appear from the discussion that follows) by judgment and order dated 18th July, 1984 passed by Sri Phool Singh, the then Presiding Officer, of the said Court.2. 23 of them (Harish Chandra and 22 others) filed Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 1984, whereas the 24th accused Shyamu son of Harish Chandra filed connected appeal No. 2036 of 1984.3. There was another accused Ram Pal named in the F.I.R. but the chargesheet was not submitted against him.4. Appellant Narena of Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 1984 died during the pendency of the appeal. As such, the appeal abates so far as he is concerned. Therefore, presently, there are 22 appellants in criminal appeal No. 1959 of 1984 and appellant Shyamu in connected criminal appeal No. 2036 of 1984. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Kushal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3458
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Kushal, Kashi Ram and Sanwal against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1981 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 1980, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--Sanwal :-- (i) Under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life; and(ii) under Section 394 read with 397 IPC to undergo 7 years R.I.Kushal and Kashi Ram :-- (i) Under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life; and(ii) Under Section 394 IPC to undergo 5 years R.I.The sentences of all the appellants were directed to run concurrently,2. Shortly stated the prosecution case, runs as under :--Deceased Sabira was the daughter of the Informant Rajja PW-1, She was married to Barkat of village Hardaspur within the limits of Police Station Sandila, district Hardoi, 10 days prior to the Incident, the informant had brought her to his house in village Rajepur Grunt (Pulenda) within the limit...
Tag this Judgment!Radha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC455
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents and their subordinates and other officers not to evict the petitioners from their residences and not to harass them.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In this case on 19.11.2002, learned standing counsel prayed for time to seek instructions. Today learned standing counsel has submitted written instructions before us which shall be placed on record and shall be treated as the counter-affidavit in this case.4. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been doing the profession of singing and dancing for the last several years and have nothing to do with prostitution nor have they violated the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. They are living in their respective residences coming within the area of police station Brahmapuri, district Meerut. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that after coming into force of the amending Act No. 44 of 198...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nishat Fatima and ors. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC450b
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri W. H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Haidar Husain, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.2. This writ petition has been directed against an order which relates to an election which was due in March, 1993. Admittedly, the term for which the elections were held and conducted in due course of time had come to an end. Sri Haidar Husain, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that since the election has already been held during the pendency of the writ petition on 22.7.2002, when the interim order was not in operation which was subsequently stayed by this Court by the order dated 30th July, 2002. This argument advanced by Sri Haidar Husain deserves to be rejected. The election said to have taken place on 22nd July, 2002, was with regard to the election which was due in 1993 and the term being three years, the election held in the year 2002 cannot be said to be valid election beyond the period 1993-96. Even assum...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC959
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 1.5.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 24.8.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).2. The dispute relates to enhancement of rent in respect of a premises situated in Deoria-Kasia Road, district Deoria, the detail of which have been in the application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') referred to hereinafter. The said premises has hereinafter been referred to as the disputed premises.3. From the allegation made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 20.12.1985 under Section 21 (8) of the U. P, Act No. 13 of 1972, inter alia, praying for enhancement of rent in respect of the disputed premises from Rs. 300 per month to Rs. 13,750 per month with effect from 1.1.1986. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajendra Prasad Dubey Vs. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1052
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed that he should be considered for interview for the post of Lecturer in Economics. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission and in paragraph 6 of the same, it has been stated that the procedure of short-listing on the basis of merit was adopted. It has been further stated that, the petitioner had obtained 66 marks in the merit index while the last candidate called for interview had obtained 76 marks and had throughout obtained first division ; whereas the petitioner obtained second division. 3. The method of short-listing procedure has been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 42013 of 1999, Dr. Kiran Bala Singh v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad and another, decided on 1.10.1999 and Writ Petition No. 2021 of 2000, Bhasker Awasthi v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad, These decisions have followed the d...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Son of Maiya DIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3437
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant is Rameshwar who Is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-6-1981 passed by Sri R. R. Jatav, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 186 of 1980 convicting him under Section 307, IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.2. At the hearing of the appeal, none has appeared from the side of the appellant, though he is represented on record by Sri R. Pande, Advocate and is on bail. I have heard learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in opposition of this appeal and have gone through the record, which has been summoned. The appeal is being decided on merits.3. The facts lie within a short compass. Four persons including the appellant were tried. Out of the remaining three, two were his brothers and another one was his nephew. Some time before the incident, murder of Badri was committed in which Mata Deen was involved as an accused. When he was in jail, the complainant Manni Lal was looking after his ag...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Jewellers and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)194CTR(All)44
1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Mahajan, the learned counsel representing the Revenue.2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 and is directed against the final order passed by the Tribunal disposing of the second appeal which had been filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 30th Dec., 1991.3. From a perusal of the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant had prayed for the setting aside of the order passed by the CIT(A) and restoration of the order passed by the assessing authority. During the pendency of the second appeal, an application was filed on 9th Dec., 1999, praying for adding additional grounds of appeal which was allowed. The Tribunal vide impugned order while allowing the appeal only in part has modified the order passed by the CIT(A) with certain directions.3. We have perused the order passed by the CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »