Allahabad Court September 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.
Virendra Seth Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1525
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. The appellant was charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act (in short 'the Act') before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. He was convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated 20-12-1997, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. One Lac, in default of the payment of which it is also directed that the appellant would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months.2. The short facts of the case are that on 18-1-1997, while the Sub Inspector of Police, Nag Narayan Singh (P.W. 1) of RS. Mardah, District Ghazipur was patrolling in his area along with police team consisting of constable Shri Niwas Dubey (P.W. 2), constable Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 3), and others, he found the accused sitting at the shop of Shankar 'Chae Wala'. He, after having seen the police party, tried to run away giving rise to suspicion in the mind of (P.W. 1). He was chased and apprehended. He when asked a...
Ex. No. 13672886-w Naik Natwar Lal Harjiwan Das Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC266
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 18th July, 1975 as a Sepoy. In the year 1992, while the petitioner was posted in the field in the 8th Battalion of the Brigade of Guards, he was charge-sheeted for an incident that allegedly took place on 4.1.1992. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 6.7.1992 and the three charges framed against him were as follows :* First under Section 69 of the Army Act for committing civil offence, that is to say using force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty contrary to Section 354 I.P.C.;* Second under Section 39(d) of the Army Act for failing to appear, without sufficient cause, at the time fixed and place appointed for duty; and* Third under Section 48 of the Army Act with regard to the petitioner having been found in a state of intoxication.2. All the three charges relate to the same date i.e., 4.1.1992.3. The petitioner was tried by the Summary Court Martial on 6.7.1992 and on the same date itself, after havin...
Kusum Devi Vs. Ram Chandra Maurya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC432
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, Mr. R.R.K. Mishra, learned AGA and Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the record.2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.4.2001 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, in Case No. 120 of 1999. Smt. Kusum Devi v. Ram Chandra Maurya, by which the application for maintenance filed by Smt. Kusum Devi against her husband Ram Chandra Maurya was dismissed.3. It is not disputed that Criminal Case No. 120 of 1999, Smt. Kusum Devi v. Ram Chandra Maurya, was pending in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, on 12.4.2001 between the parties when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order was 'Case called out repeatedly. None of the parties is present. The applicant was absented since 08/1, therefore, the Criminal Case No. 120 of 1999 is dismissed.' 4. There is an affidavit of Smt. Kusum Devi, the applicant - revisionist th...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Surwati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC213
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated 19.12.1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Addl. District Judge), Gorakhpur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 126 of 1983.2. Heard Mr. Amaresh Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. P.K. Misra assisted by Mr. H.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. Opposite parties moved claim petition in respect of death of Yamuna Prasad Pandey, which took place on 11.7.1983 at about 9 a.m. It was alleged that Yamuna Prasad Pandey was going to his office on a cycle and at the crossing of Rustampur he was dashed by a motor truck No. UPQ 838, due to which he died on the spot. Rash and negligent driving by the truck driver was alleged. The Tribunal found that the accident took place by truck No. UPQ 838 due to its rash and negligent driving resulting in death of Yamuna Prasad Pandey. The Tribunal also found that the truck was driven by Prem Nath who had a valid driving licence on the...
indra Gyan Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3429
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri V. P. Shukla, counsel for petitioner and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, Additional Standing Counsel for respondents.2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Border Security Force on 25.6.1986. After completing training he was posted at various places. On 4.9.1993 he was transferred and posted at Headquarter Turra, district West Garo Hill, Meghalay. Due to change of climate, he fell ill and suffered attack of Bronchial Asthama and was under continuous treatment at Christian Mission Hospital, Turra. The Doctors recommended that he should be transferred to suitable climate. He was required to appear before medical board which submitted its report dated 9.4.1995 recommending that petitioner should not be posted at high altitude cold climatic areas. Instead of transferring petitioner to suitable climate condition he was posted at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir which aggravated his health condition. Repeated reminders and personal meetings with Commandant of the Batt...
Manendra Nath Rai and anr. Vs. Virendra Bhatia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All133
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by two practising Advocates of this Court challenging the appointment of Sri Virendra Bhatia as Advocate General of the State. The petition has been argued by Sri Manendra Nath Rai, petitioner No. 1 in presence of Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, petitioner No. 2, who has stated that he adopt the arguments advanced by Sri Manendra Nath Rai.2. On the formation of the present Government, Sri Virendra Bhatia has been appointed as Advocate General of the State on 16-9-2003.3. While making a challenge to the aforesaid appointment of Sri Virendra Bhatia, the petitioner, Manendra Nath Rai has drawn attention of the Court to Article 217 of the Constitution of India. His submission is that even in the case of appointment to the office of the Advocate General the Governor has to consult or should consult the Chief Justice of the State. For elaborating the aforesaid argument, he has placed reliance upon Article 217(1) of...
Bansidhar Vs. Xiith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1016
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Petitioner/ tenant has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow exercising the power of Prescribed Authority under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 in P.A. Case Nos. 13/1991 and 14/1991 as contained in Annexure-2 and the judgment and order dated 26.3.1998 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in the Rent Appeal Nos. 35 of 1997 and 36 of 1997.2. It appears that the opposite party No. 3 had filed two applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for release of House No. 39/93 situated in Grain Market Narhi, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. This application was registered as P.A. Case No. 13 of 1991. The opposite party No. 3 also moved another application under Section...
Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC196
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for petitioner and Sri Deepak Verma, Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, respondents 1 to 4.2. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Border Security Force on 5.3.2002. He completed his training in the month of December, 2002 and was posted as Constable in 14th Battalion in Punjab. On 28.6.2002, petitioner was called by Additional Deputy Director General of Police/Commandant STC, Training Centre, North Bengal, Baikunthour, New Jalpai Guri. The Commandant made enquiries from petitioner, whether any criminal case is pending against him or he has been sent to Jail. The petitioner replied to both the questions in negative. The petitioner was also asked whether he had made any false declaration in his enrolment form. The petitioner denied that he had made any such false declaration. By an order dated 17.1.2003 passed by respondent No. 4, petitioner's services have been terminated. The order states that petitioner was tried by Summ...
Krishna Kumar Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC181
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J.1. The above revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision Nos. 190/2002, 201/2002, 209/2002, 215/2002, 216/2002, 217/2002 and 255/2002, arising out of Complaint Case Nos. 55/2001,54/2001,56/2001,57/2001,58/ 2001, 53/2001 and 59/2001, respectively filed by respondent No. 2 against the present revisionists.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present revisions, are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionists under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the A.C.J.M., Court No. 3. Bulandshahr. The Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant and the witnesses, passed order summoning the accused. The accused-revisionists appeared before the Magistrate and filed objection against the summoning order dated 14.5.2001. The Magistrate allowed the said objection and set as...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2836
Sunil Ambawani, J.1. Heard Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 31.8.1981. In the year 1995 he was transferred to Mathura. On 13.6.2000 petitioner was assigned duties to take two accused namely Babloo son of Odal, and Rakesh alias Manoj son of Allo, before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. Another accused Prakash, who was also to be taken to the Court was in custody of Constable Karan Singh. The said accused Prakash escaped from custody. A case crime No. 91/2000 was registered against petitioner on 13.6.2000, under Sections 223/224 IPC at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Mathura. On 27.7.2000 accused Prakash alias Vijay Prakash was arrested by Police personnel of P.S. Kotwali, Mathura. The said accused Prakash has long history in crime, and has been implicated in about fifteen crime cases detailed in the report, out of which case crime No. 161/1994 is under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »