Allahabad Court November 2002 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.
Smt. Shamshad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1322
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the convicted lady Shamshad Bai against the judgment and order dated 24-11-1981 passed by Sri K.S. Dubey, the then VI Additional Sessions Jduge (Metropolitan Area), Kanpur in S.T. No. 252/M of 1980. She has been convicted under Sections 366, IPC, 368, IPC and 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC. She has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, IPC another four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 368, IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/114, IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts leading to this appeal are set forth briefly. The genesis of the prosecution case was an FIR lodged on 19-12-1977 at 5-15 p.m. by one Devi Das Arya, a social worker, journalist and the president of local Arya Samaj of Police Station Anwarganj, Kanpur.3. The vision was a Muslim girl of Mandapali, Madras, named Kamla Bi who became orphan. Her brothers were doing some job a...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Anant Kumar Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2060
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 404 of 2002, has been filed by the State of U.P. through Secretary, Education U.P. Government, Lucknow, Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Lucknow and the Director Basic Education, U.P., while the Special Appeal No. 365 of 2002, has been filed by District Basic Teachers Kalyan Samiti and three others after obtaining leave to appeal and the remaining special appeals have been filed by the selected candidates after obtaining leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 21.3.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001, Anant Kumar Tiwari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. and other connected writ petitions, whereby the learned single Judge had allowed all the writ petitions and had quashed the Government order dated 3.8.2001, the advertisement dated 14.8.2001. Government order dated 3.12.2001 and the process of selection, pursuant thereto at whatever stage it had reached be...
Dudh Nath Mishra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1087
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. Petitioners, ten in number, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code) challenging the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/427/504/506 I.P.C. in a complaint case No. 557 of 1990.2. Since question of law is only involved, it is not necessary to delineate the factual aspects of the case. The question raised is whether in a case arising out of complaint triable by the court of session, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to examine all witnesses named in the complaint petition in the enquiry held under Section 202 of the Code. In the case on hand, there were in total sixteen witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition, out of whom complainant respondent No. 2 examined twelve during enquiry. Complaining that there was non-compliance of the statutory provision as envisaged in the proviso to the said section an...
Murli Coal Depot Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2002
Reported in: [2006]146STC536(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel.2. By this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated July 22, 2002 by which the Tribunal while allowing the second appeal of the assessee has remanded the matter to the assessing authority.3. Earlier the matter came to this Court by means of Trade Tax Revision No. 5 of 1999 and Trade Tax Revision No. 4 of 1999. Both the revisions were decided by the common judgment dated March 22, 1999 copy of which has been filed as annexure-4 to the revision. This Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal with certain directions as contained in the order. This Court has observed in the judgment that appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has not examined certain aspects of the matter which were required to be examined.4. The counsel for the revisionist contended that this Court when directed the Tribunal to decide the matter, it was obligatory upon the Tribunal to itself de...
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Vs. Ravindra Kumar Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC31
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 1,13,070/- to the claimant on account of his having suffered multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40% in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle - a bus - owned by the appellant.2. The Tribunal after carefully considering the evidence and materials brought on record believing the injured claimant examined as P.W. 1, has come to the conclusion that it was a hit and run case where the driver of the bus after hitting the scooter on which the injured was travelling, had run away. This impact, it has been found, had resulted in various multiple injuries as compound fractures etc. making the injured, aged about 42 years permanently disabled to the extent of 40%.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the driver and the conduct...
Smt. Hazzee Vs. Prescribed Authority Under Panchayat Raj Act/Up-zila A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC311
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. An order dated 23.9.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baberu in election petition No, 14 of 2000 under Section 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 directing recount of votes has been challenged by the winning candidate, who was declared elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Lahureta, Tehsil and Pargana Naraini, district Banda.2. I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan and W.H. Khan for contesting respondents.3. The facts in brief are that Smt. Zummi Khatoori, respondent No. 2 filed the above election petition for declaring the election of Smt. Hazzee, petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Lahureta. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the matter and the payment of requisite fees was decided in favour of e'lection petitioner. The District Judge allowed the Revision No. 45 of 2001 on 15.5.2001 and directed the issue to be decided as fresh once again. The ap...
Ram Bahal Nishad Vs. Director, Fisheries Department and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC547
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 21.9.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Fisheries, Basti, on his application for voluntary retirement dated 1.9.2000 with effect from 30.11.2000, and the order dated 30.11.2000, by which he has retired as Matsya Vikas Adhikari, Sant Kabirnagar.2. The facts of this case are that petitioner appointed in the year 1970, was serving as Matsya Vikas Adhikari, Santkablr Nagar. He submitted an application dated 1.9.2000, for voluntary retirement to be effective from 30.11.2000. On 20.9.2000, he gave an application to modify the order to the effect that he has been harassed on account of his transfer within five months, and non-payment of salary for two days. On 22.9.2000, an application was made by his wife for cancelling the application given by her husband for voluntary retirement. The application for retirement was accepted on 21.9.2000 to be effective from 30.11.2000. Petitioner was required to handover charge on 30.11.2000. By an...
Ram Kishun Maurya and ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC458
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The question is whether one set of court fee is payable when there is common cause for each of the petitioners and the question of law and facts involved in the writ petition are the same.2. The facts raising controversy are that the four petitioners in this petition were under the employment of U. P. Electricity Board. Their services were terminated. The orders of termination of services were quashed in Writ Petition No. 16885 of 1992. The petitioners were reemployed. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that whereas in Azamgarh Division of the U. P. Power Corporation, the muster roll employees are being paid the same wages which are being paid to the regular employees but they are not being paid the same wages. They have sought mandamus commanding the respondents to place the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 4,200-6,400 which is the pay scale for those who are employed as regular employees of the respondents.3. The Full Bench of this Court i...
Payal Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR598(All); 2003(2)AWC911
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The above application for grant of ad interim order, restraining the respondents from realising a sum of Rs. 1,83,916.00, the alleged risk purchase or any other damages from the appellant against the notice dated 16.1.1998 during pendency of appeal was placed before the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran on 20.3.2002. The Bench issued notice returnable at a very early date. In pursuance of the above notice, Shri Govind Saran, advocate appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter the above application was sent before me for orders.2. I have heard Shri S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents on the above stay application.3. The appellant filed F.A.F.O. No. 990 of 2001 against the order dated 24.3.2001, passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 66 of 2000, rejecting the application of the appellant...
Ghamari Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2178
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.12.1980, 27.1.1981 and 31.8.1982 passed by the authorities below in the proceedings under Section 42A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the 'the Act').3. It appears that an application was filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 under Section 42A of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming that plot No. 577/2, equivalent to plot No. 311, was originally allotted to the said respondent but wrongly continued to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. The said plot, according to him, was liable to be recorded in his name after expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue papers. The application filed by the said contesting respondent was opposed by the petitioner. It was contended...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »