Allahabad Court February 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.
Ram Kailash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1017
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of Revision No, 41 of 1992, Ramshiromani v. Raj Murat, under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The counsel for the petitioner has alternatively submitted that a direction be issued to the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously. A revision has been filed by Ram Shiromani, i.e., respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Machhli Shahr, in case No. 16 under Sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid revision was filed under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. He has submitted that Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act has been deleted by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, hence there is no provision of Section 218 in the statute ...
Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1079
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 5.6.1997 and 1.1.1999, Annexures-4 and 9 to the writ petition, respectively, passed by licensing authority as well as the appellate authority cancelling the petitioner's fire-arm licence on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal case being Case Crime No. 141 of 1996, under Sections 307/323/504/506, I.P.C.. registered at police station Munderwa, district Basti, which is pending before the court below and a charge-sheet, in this connection, has been submitted. With regard to the aforesaid criminal case, during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court was of the opinion that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner's fire-arm shall remain stayed. This interim order has been passed by this Court on 5th of February, 1999. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the afores...
iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1086
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, peti-tioner Iftikhar Khan has challenged the orders dated 24.11.1997 and 4.3.1999, Annexures-3 and 9 to the writ petition, respectively, under the provisions of the Arms Act revoking the licence of his fire-arm.2. Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 10.7.1996, petitioner has been served with a show cause notice dated 10.7.1996 under Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to show cause by 12.8.1996 as to why his fire-arm licence may not be cancelled and in reply thereto, he filed his objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the show cause notice. The further contention of the petitioner's counsel is that a case under Crime No. 91 of 1996, under S...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sayeed Mohd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1087; [2002(94)FLR1225]; (2002)2UPLBEC1118
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties by me vide order dated 4.2.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on.2. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.3. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which has been referred by the State Government under Section 4K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act which runs as under :^^D;k lsok;kstdkssa }kjk viusJfed Jh lbZn eksgEen iq= Jh gwcnkjlgk;d eSdsfud dks eSdsfud ds in ij izksUur u fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ fjyhQ ikus dkvf/kdkjh gS fdl frfFk ls ,oa vU; fdu fooj.kksa lfgr ** 4. The case set up by the concerned workman was that he was appointed after selection in trade test in the year 1958 on the post of Cleaner. He possessed the certificate of High School and a certificate from Government Polytechnic in the Motor Mechanic Trade also. The workman concerned was promoted by the order dated 11.4.1961 on the...
Balkrishan Pandey Vs. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1139
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.12.1997 and 5.2.1999. Annexures-5 and 8 to the writ petition, respectively, passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority cancelling the petitioner's fire arm licence on the ground that the petitioner is involved in 11 criminal cases, the details of which have been given in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted or the proceedings have been dropped in 9 cases out of total 11 cases. It is further submitted that in remaining two cases. i.e., Case Crime No. 135 of 1993 (S.T. No. 202 of 1993). under Sections 307/504/506 and 3(i)10 S.C./S.T. Act and Case Crime No. 70 of 1989 (S.T. No. 125 of 1991) under Sections 307/34 and 506. I.P.C., petitioner has also been acquitted vide orders dated 14.1.1999 and 13.4.2000, passed by learne...
Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Surya Kant Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1323
D.K. Seth, J.1. After hearing Mr. A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and perusing the order for amendment passed on 12th January, 2000 in SCC Suit No. 19 of 1997 by the learned Additional District Judge XVth Court, Kanpur Nagar and the plaint and the amendment application. It appears that the prayer (a) of the amendment application has since been disallowed, while the rest have been allowed. In the prayer (a), the plaintiff had sought to incorporate the date of construction of the building as on November, 1997 and its assessment by the Nagar Palika. That prayer having been refused, the argument of Mr. Sinha to the extent that it is wholly inconsistent and in fact has been sought to introduce a new case, loses its significance. Though, however, the question of maintainability of the suit was said to be saved for hearing at the time of disposal. Mr. Sinha contends that this cannot be done. The question of maintainability of the suit in a particular situations, is a question ...
Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2078
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 23-8-2001 Annexure 1 to the petition passed under the N.S.A. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is alleged that is on 27-6-2001 the petitioner and his two associates at about 4.30 P.M. shot dead one Sunil Kumar Singh on the National High Way because Sunil Kumar Singh was objecting to the petitioner getting the two ponds of the Gram Sabha released and had been doing pairvi to get the illegal possession of the petitioner over the said ponds vacated. Litigation was going on in this connection in various courts. The petitioner after the murder went with a revolver in his hand firing in the air to create panic and terror in the public on the road and due to terror in the locality the shopkeepers closed their shops. The residents of the village ran to their fields and starting running here and there. There was terror in the area. There are allegations that...
Smt. Shanti Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2002
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1395
M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Lagan Mishra and learned standing counsel.2. The controversy Involved In the present writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 4 viz. Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Adhikari (Task Force Officer). Block Baldirai, Sultanpur. is empowered to hold preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Rules) or not ?3. The petitioner-Smt. Shantl ts a duly elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. Saini, Block Baldirai, district, Sultanpur. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 (Enquiry Officer) is not an authorized person to hold preliminary enquiry under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Enquiry Rules, 1997, published in the U. P. Gazette Extra Part-IV Section (kha) dated 2...
Seraj Ahmad Vs. Mohammad Ramjan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC770
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 31.5.1989 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1985.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :The house in dispute was owned by Nazir Ahmad, All Ahmad and Smt. Shamsunnisha. Nazir Ahmad and All Ahmad each have 40 seham share in thedisputed house and Smt. Shamsunnisha was having 20 seham share. The Original Suit No. 71 of 1976 was filed by Mohd. Ramjan, respondent No. 1, for specific performance of contract for sale alleging that Nazir Ahmad, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit and had died during the pendency of the suit agreed to sell his 40 seham share in the disputed house to the plaintiff for consideration of 3.500 and a registered agreement to sale was executed on 24.9.1973. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was given in advance and the balance amount of Rs. 1,500 was to be given at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. The appellant Seraj Ahmad is alle...
Jag Pal Singh Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC988; [2002(93)FLR373]; (2002)2UPLBEC1132
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is Assistant Manager in District Industries Center and he has been transferred from Ghaziabad to Gautam Buddh Nagar. However, he has not yet vacated the official accommodation in his possession at Ghaziabad. He has challenged the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 26.4.2001 Annexure-4 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the said accommodation.3. It is deeply regrettable that the petitioner is still retaining the official accommodation at Ghaziabad although he has been transferred to Gautam Buddh Nagar a long time back. If a Government servant does not vacate the official accommodation after his transfer/retirement, his successor will have no place to live in.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not been allotted any accommodation at Gautam Buddh Nagar. Be that as it m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »