Allahabad Court March 2003 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.
Murari Lal Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1872
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted theka for 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. The period of this theka is about to expire and we have held in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7154 of 2003, POLE Ads Advertising v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and Ors., decided today that the period of contract cannot be renewed or extended as that would violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For the reasons given in that decision, this petition is dismissed.2. However, if the petitioner was not allowed to operate the theka for any period or any part thereof, he shall be refunded the theka amount, or the proportionate amount of the theka as the case may be. For thispurpose, the petitioner should applyto the respondent No. 5 and if he doesso, and the respondent No. 5 findsthat his claim is correct, the amountshall be refunded to the petitionerpreferably within a month ofproduction of a certified copy of thisorder in accordance with law. ...
Nageshwar Prasad Mishra Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1873; [2003(97)FLR529]
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondents.2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 18th February, 2003, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been suspended for non-compliance of the order issued by the higher authorities in contemplation of an enquiry.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges cannot be made because there is already an order passed by the Collector himself that no demarcation should be made unless the plots are vacated on the spot whereas on the date on which the petitioner is said to have not complied with the order of the higher authorities, the plots were not vacant on the spot and the crops were standing thereon. This may be a good and reasonable explanation for the petitioner as and when the charge-sheet is served upon him. It...
Pole-ads Advertising (P.) Ltd. Vs. Nagar Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1880
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Prem Chand has appeared for the respondent.2. Admittedly, the petitioner had been granted a contract for five years from 12.2.1998 to 11.2.2003. This five years period has admittedly expired.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Clause 4 of the agreement dated 12.2.1998 which states as follows :'That this contract shall be valid for five years period. But it shall further be renewed, at the option of both the parties on the prevailing advertisement tax rates.'4. In our opinion, this clause only applies where both the parties are agreeable that the contract should be renewed. In the present case, the respondents were not agreeable to renew the contract. Moreover, in our opinion, this clause for renewal of the contract is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In a case where the contract was granted for a fixed period, then it is known to the parties th...
Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. Superintendent of Railway Police and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1875; (2003)2UPLBEC1178
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondents.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass, it is not necessary to invite any counter-affidavit.3. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs :(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Railway Police, Agra Cantt., Agra (respondent No. 1) not to interfere in the peaceful living of petitioner in House No. D-7, Railway Colony, Agra Cantt., Agra and further direct the respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner for residing in the aforesaid house till the allotment of new residential house in District Police, Agra. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to not Initiate any legal or departmental proceeding against the petitioner for non-vacating the residential house N...
Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1892
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Agra, whereby the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suspension order refers to Rule 17(1) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rule 17 (1) (a) of the Rules confers power of suspension as in contemplation/pendency of enquiry against a subordinate police officer. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled that mere wrong mention of the provisions of law will not vitiate the order passed by the authority, if the authority has power to pass the order. In this view of the matter, this argument of the lea...
Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2169
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 19th February, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, whereby the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and Ors., 2001 (2) AWC 1506 : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, has argued that in the impugned order of suspension, there is no recital that any enquiry is in contemplation or pending. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment will demonstrate that the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment was of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending whereas in the present case the opening sentence of the impugned order itself demonstrates that the disciplinary ...
Man Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)3; 2003CriLJ3908
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1.This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 13-11-1981 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1981 convicting the appellants Man Singh, Virendra Bahadur Singh and Surendra Bahadur Sigh under Section 302, IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Appellants Virendra Bahadur Singh and Surendra Bahadur Singh are real brothers and residents of village Karwawatu. Appellant Man Singh is resident of village Turikpar. Nazim alias Phakkari deceased, his father Bhajan (P.W. 1) and wife Smt. Tar Chand (P.W. 2) were also residents of village Karwawatu, P.S. Auriaya, district Etawah. Prior to occurrence of this case, cousin brother of appellant Virendra Bahadur Singh was murdered and Nazim deceased was an accused in the said case. However, the above case ended in acquittal. On account of it, there was enmity between the parties.3. Nazim deceased was carrying a cycle repair shop near culvert of Dudhiyakh...
Krishna and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4620
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In S.T. No. 340 of 1980 State v. Sumera and two others under Section 302/34, 307/34, I.P.C., P.S. Tindwari, District Banda, II Additional Sessions Judge Banda, by his judgment dated 25-3-1981 convicted and vide order dated 26-3-1981 sentenced Sri Krishna appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., 7 years R. I. for offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. No sentence was awarded for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Appellant Sumera (who is now dead and his appeal has abated) was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 2 years R. I. for offence punishable under Section 307/34, I.P.C., 6 months R. I. for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34. I.P.C. Appellant Kaira was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sectio...
Afsar Son of Avez and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3917
K.N. Ojha, J. 1.This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 18-8-80, passed by Sri S. K. Saxena, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1979 by which all the above five appellants were convicted and each one of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Report was received from the police station concerned through C.J.M. that during the pendency of the appeal appellants Afsar and Hanif died. Therefore, their appeal stands abated so far as they are concerned.2. We have heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. K. Varma, learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record.3. According to prosecution, murder of Sajid Husain, resident of village Jaroda, police station Kithor, District Meerut, was committed by the appellants, who are residents of the same village, on 29-5-79 at 6.30 P.M. in village Bhadoli, P.S. Kithore, district Meerut. The place of occurrence is about...
Mahadev Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3462
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. By means of above writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of detention order dated 4-5-2002, passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj, respondent No. 3, 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 15-11-2001 at about 2.45 p.m. at village Parsa, P.S. Parsa Malik, district Maharajganj, at a distance of one kilometer from Indo Nepal Border, the police of P.S. Parsa Malik recovered 1100 cartridges of 303 and 450 factory made cartridges of 12 bore from the possession of Pramod Yadav, an associate of the petitioner who was carrying the same on the frame of cycle in a plastic bag. The remaining four associates of the petitioner were successful in carrying cartridges in three bags to Nepal. The above cartridges were being carried for use by Maos in terrorist activities. The above act was being done by an organized gang of the petitioner for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »