Allahabad Court March 2004 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.
Rajeev Verma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2956; II(2004)DMC76
Sushil Harkauli, J. 1. The respondent No. 4 who is the father of the wife Sharda Devi lodged an FIR against the husband, who is the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioners No. 2 to 5 at P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi under Sections 498A/504/506, IPC read with Sections 3/4 D.P. Act which was registered as Case Crime No. 225 of 1997. After investigation final report was submitted by the police, which was accepted by C.J.M. Varanasi.2. A suit for divorce was instituted on 28-8-1999 by the petitioners. On 7-12-1999 written statement was filed in the suit. On 10-2-2000 another FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 4 at Mahila Thana, Allahabad against the petitioners under Section 498A, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act which was registered as Case Crime No. 112 of 2000. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted by the police being Charge-Sheet No. 17 of 2000 dated 28-12-2000 under Sections 498A, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.3. This writ petition prays for quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that ...
Shashi Kamal Rai Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3536
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. The above three appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-10-1980 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1975 convicting Shashi Kamal Rai accused under Section 325, IPC and instead of sentencing him 'to imprisonment directing him to be released on probation for a period of three years on his entering into a bond of Rs. 2,500/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount, for putting in appearance to receive sentence, if and when called upon during the said period and in the meantime for keeping peace and doing good behaviour.2. The prosecution case briefly stated, was that Sudhir Kumar deceased (18) and accused Shashi Kamal Rai were students of Intermediate Ist year in Government City Inter College, Ghazipur. They were students of Science group with Biology IIIrd and IVth periods of their class from 1].20 a.m. to 12.40 p.m. on every Friday and Saturday were allotted for practical in. Biology s...
Sheo Nath Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2830
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26th February, 1979, passed by Civil Judge, 1st, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 735 of 1977. whereby the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff and maintained the order dated 31st May, 1977, passed by the trial court.2. The facts leading to filing of the second appeal is that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit being Suit No. 111 of 1972 for the following reliefs :'(a) That by a decree of this Hon'ble Court it be declared that the order of removal dated 10.2.1970 served on 19.9.1971 is illegal being ultra-vires and as such is not binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a full fledged 'RAKSHAK' as before with rights to receive all his pay and other emoluments attached to the post valued at Rs. 300 for declaration.(b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.(c) That such other and further relief as the nature of the suit may admit be al...
Sanjay Alias Saju Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3954
K.K. Misra, J.1. In both these Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions, the impugned detention orders in respect of both the petitioners have been passed on the basis of the one and same incident, hence they are taken up together and are disposed of by a common order.2. By means of the instant petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the detention order dated 22-3-2003 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (briefly, the Act).3. In the grounds of detention, Annexure-II to the petition, it is stated that on 18-12-2002 Shiv Kumar Tiwari and Ram Sewak Tiwari were sitting in the shop of Deen Dayal situate in Katra Bajar of town Gursharai at about 4 pm., the petitioners along with Mahesh came on a motor cycle. The petitioners were armed with country made pistols. It is further stated that the petitioner Sanjay alias Sanju fired a shot upon Ram Sewak Tiwari on his le...
Litil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3415b
ORDERPradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhra, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 23.2.2004, by means of which he has been transferred from the Government Polytechnic, Kanpur to Government Polytechnic, Mainpuri.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the children of the petitioner are studying and final examination are to take place in the month of March, 2004, itself and, therefore, his displacement would adversely affect the studies of children.4. Learned State counsel says that the children of the petitioner are small and that they are not appearing in the examination of senior class and, therefore, this ground would not be available to him.5. Considering the facts of the case and finding that every day a large number of transfer orders are being issued in the month of January and February of the year, we asked the learned standing counsel to explain the reason for such bulk transfer orders being passed ...
Vikki Alias Vikrant Tyagi Vs. Adhikshak District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4539
K.K. Misra, J. 1. By means of this Habeas Corpus writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the detention order dated 1-10-2003, Annexure 1 to the petition passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (briefly, the Act).2. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner is a branded criminal and offences of serious nature have been committed by him in the district. The petitioner is involved in several offences of murder, kidnapping, extortion and land grabbing. The people in the area have become terror stricken and panicky due to the activities of the petitioner. The criminal history of the petitioner and specific instances of his involvement in several offences have also been narrated in the grounds of detention. It is further alleged that the petitioner is making every effort to be released on bail and there is strong possibility of his being releas...
Sanjay Alias Sanju Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR121(All)]
K.K. Misra, J.1. In both these Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions the impugned detention orders in respect of both the petitioners have been passed on the basis of the one and same incident, hence they are taken up together and are disposed of by a common order,2. By means of the instant petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the detention order dated 22.3.2003 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (briefly, the Act).3. In the grounds of detention, Annexure-II to the petition, it is stated that on 18.12.2002 Shiv Kumar Tiwari and Ram Sewak Tiwari were sitting in the shop of Deen Dayal, situate in Katra Bajar of town Gursharai at about 4 p.m., the petitioners along with Mahesh came on a motor cycle. The petitioners were armed with country made pistols. It is further stated that the petitioner Sanjay alias Sanju fired a shot upon Ram Sewak Tiwari on hi...
Mohammed Akbar Ilyas Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1417
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The aforesaid three writ petitions were heard together and the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the Writ Petition No. 42239 of 1998 be treated as leading case.2. The leading writ petition arises out of execution of a release order passed on the ground of bona fide need of the petitioner under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the petitioner, Mohd. Akbar Ilyas (hereinafter referred to as landlord). The other two writ petitions are off shoots of the execution of the release order.3. It is said that real difficulty arises only when a person becomes a decree holder. The facts of these petitions do disclose a sorry state of affairs. A release order which was passed in favour of the petitioner (landlord) as far back as on 20th of April, 1978 by the Prescribed Authority and was confirmed by the first appellate authority on 14.10.1981 and was thereafter conf...
Babu Ali (D) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Dukkhi (D) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1620
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of District Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 307 of 1994.3. The only question involved in this case is that the decree passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 7/63 is executable or not.4. Relevant facts in short are that Dukkhi who was respondent No. 1 in this petition executed an agreement to sell his nineteen bhumidhari plots in favour of Sankhta and Satyanarain, predecessors of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on 28.5.1963. The area of these 19 plots was 5 bighas 19 biswas and 9 dhoor. It was an unregistered document. Dukkhi thereafter sold these plots to the ancestors of the petitioners on 18.6.1963 by a registered sale deed. The ancestors of respondent No. 2 to 5 filed a Suit No. 7/1963 for specific performance against Dukkhi, which was decreed on 31.7.1964. The order was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 303/1964 by the defendant judgment debto...
Sheikh Khalikuzzama (D) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Sheikh Akhtaruzzama ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1636
ORDERM. Katju and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. This first appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur dated 9.12.2003 in Suit No. 177 of 1995.2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not gone into the merits of the findings of the court below and instead he has submitted that before the judgment was delivered on 9.12.2003, the plaintiffs appellants had moved application dated 7.10.2003 praying for withdrawal of the suit. Earlier he had filed application dated 8.9.2003 praying for withdrawal of the suit, but in that application he had prayed for liberty to file a fresh suit. However, in the second application dated 7.10.2003, he has not prayed for liberty to file a fresh suit. It is uncontroverted that the application dated 7.10.2003 was indeed filed in the court below before the impugned judgment dated 9.12.2003 was delivered.3. The plaintiff in a suit is dominus litus. He has paid court fee of the suit. Hence as held by the Division Bench de...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »