Allahabad Court March 2003 Judgments
Bholu Alias Danis Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4090
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging his detention order, dated 18-7-2002, passed by District Magistrate, Azamgarh., respondent No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act and had prayed for his release.2. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention along with the order of detention which stated that on 14-4-2002 at about 12.15 p.m. on account of previous altercation between the petitioner and Babloo, cousin brother of Rajendra, the petitioner along with his 'associates, Sariq, Shamim, Sarfraj and Mumtaz armed with lathis dandas and country made pistols formed an unlawful assembly raided the house of Bhagnu Kahar and broke open his doors by kicks. Observing it Bablu ran away in the lane towards mosque to save his life. The petitioner along with his associates chased him and fired by country made pistols due to which he sustained injuries and fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant Rajendra, Arvind, Bhagnu, Smt. Gi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4064
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1.This writ petition has been filed challenging the detention order of the petitioner dated 28-9-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia, respondent No. 2, detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.2. Along with the detention order the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention which stated that on 17-6-2002 at about 10.00 a.m. Neetu Singh, the daughter of Sachidanand Singh of village Makdoompur Beria had gone to the house of her uncle Shambhu to give chaff. While she was returning to her house the petitioner kidnapped her. Report of the incident was lodged by her father Sachidanand Singh at P. S. Beria, on the basis of which a case at Crime No. 91 of 2002 under Sections 363 and 366, IPC was registered. During investigation on 8-7-2002, Km. Neetu Singh told before the Investigating Officer that she was enticed away by gagging her mouth with handkerchief and was taken forcibly in a tempo. On regaining conscious in the night sh...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Sahi Vs. Smt. Vibha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1068
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel for petitioner and Sri P.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Srivastava, for respondent No. 1 as well as learned Standing Counsel.2. Petitioner was declared elected as member of Zila Panchayat, Kshetra No. 32, Bhatpar Rani Uttari, District Deoria, in elections held on 20.5.2000 and the result was declared on 27.6.2000 after the counting held from 24th to 27th June, 2000, with a margin of 27 votes, as compared to the votes secured by respondent No. 1 Smt. Vibha.3. An election petition was filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Vibha under Sections 27(2)(a) and (b) of U.P. Kshetrya Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 read with Rules 4 and 6 of U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes Relating to Membership) Rules 1994, (in short the Rules), on the ground of gross irregularities in the counting of votes, and preparation of false election result on the basis of which petitioner Raj Kumar Sahi was declared to be elected.4. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Adhar Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1447
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ. 1.The petitioner has challenged a transfer order. Transfer is an exigency of service. Hence, we cannot interfere in this matter.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Education v. O. Karuppa Thewan, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 34 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner's transfer should be stayed because his children are studying in school and it is a mid-session transfer.3. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law that a transfer order is illegal because it is a mid-session of the children's school education. It is well settled that every directive of the Supreme Court does not lay down a principle of law vide AIR 1975 SC 1087 : AIR 2002 SC 3088 ; 1994 Lab IC 447 ; AIR 1990 SC 781 ; AIR 1983 SC 1246 ; 1996 (6) SCC 44 ; AIR 1985 SC 218 ; 1999 SCC (Cr) 1080, etc. A decision is an authority only for the principle o...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Sharma (Minor) Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Educat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1479
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri M. M. L. Srtvastava appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. S. Niranjan learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to correct the result of the petitioner in the light of the amended Regulation 20 Chapter XII and declare her pass in the intermediate examination of 2002. Another relief claimed is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to scrutinise the answer book of Physics-I paper of the petitioner of intermediate examination of 2002 and issue correct mark-sheet and certificate accordingly.4. Facts giving rise to the writ petition, briefly stated, are : petitioner appeared in intermediate examination of 2002 conducted by Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Kant Mishra and ors. Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1735
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 18th October, 2002, Annexures-5, 6 to 10 to the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to issue allotment orders in favour of the petitioners in respect to plots in question in Shantipuram (Phaphamau) Awas Yojna, Allahabad, and not to re-auction the same.3. From a perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioners were the only bidders of the plots they are claiming. Hence, as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit of the Allahabad Development Authority, the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority, who was of the opinion that the bids submitted by the petitioners did not reflect the market value and he was further of the view that transparency had not been observed in the manner of disposal of the property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Atar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2405
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.7.1997, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Misc. Case No. 290 of 1995, NOIDA v. Atar Singh, wherein the appeal was preferred against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 10.8.1986.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner-appellant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge against the order of the prescribed authority passed under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act 1972), along with an application for condonation of delay of 21 days. The appeal ought to have been filed reckoning the period of getting the certified copy of this order by 16th August, 1995 but it could be filed only on 6th September, 1995. The application has been rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown and appell...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chand Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4094
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri. V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate, for the applicant along with Sri Rakesh Bahadur and learned Standing Counsel for, the respondents.2. The first appeal from order No. 46 of 1985 preferred under Section 83 of Lunacy Act read with Section 341/195(4), Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 19-10-1984 passed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 285 of 1982 (Madan Lal v. Sri Chand) was finally disposed of by the District Judge, Azamgarh on 18-3-1983 where the District Judge has observed that Sri Chand had filed a false affidavit indicating that Madan Lal happened to be his real brother. On that aspect the District Judge had indicated for issuance of show cause notice for institution of a criminal complaint against him. The miscellaneous application No: 205 of 1983 has been originated from the said observation in respect of the alleged false affidavit filed by Sri Chand before the lower Court. Undoubtedly Sri Chand has filed an affidavit in Misc. Cas...
Tag this Judgment!K.D. Yadav Vs. Itat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN504(All)
ORDERThis appeal has been filed against the order dated 30-3-2000 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Allahabad has rejected the application of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 19-3-1990 for the assessment year 1986-87 and against the order dated 10-5-1991 for the assessment year 1987-88. The appeal for the assessment year 1986-87 was barred by 488 days while the appeal for the assessment year 1987-88 was barred by 99 days. The appellant had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Allahabad against the order refusing to condone the delay in filing Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2320 and 2321 of 1991. This court allowed the appeal by order dated 5-3-2002 holding that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for condoning the delay. Now the present appeal has been filed against the assessment year 1986-87 against the same order...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC1459
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 3.2.2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1.2. At the time of initial hearing, short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner staled that he do not propose to file any reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 and in the light of the facts and materials as exist matter may be heard and decided. In view of the aforesaid, in the light of the arguments as advanced, matter has been examined.3. The order of suspension dated 3.2.2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) proceeds on four charges :(i) Petitioner has drawn salary from Nagar Panchayat, Jhusi, Allahabad without filing Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C.).(ii) Payment has been made to one Rajendra Prasad and not to M/s. Amar Electricals to the tune of Rs. 23,134 in respect to certain electrical items which are not even ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »