Allahabad Court May 2005 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 Asrey S/O Sri Adhya Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Rev ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2084
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned advocate who appeared for Land Management Committee.2. Prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings in Case No. 25 of 2005 initiated against the petitioner, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj.3. Challenge in the proceeding is mainly on the ground that it has been started on a letter which came from the office of Chief Minister and therefore, proceeding is politically motivated. Thus the question posed here is that whether on this ground alone, proceeding of a case which can be otherwise maintainable, is to be quashed at very initial stage itself.4. The Court has examined the merits in the submission in the light of details as available on record. Proceeding as started against the petitioner is under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act which is summary in nature and its finality is subject to final decision in regular suit as provided under U. P. Z. A. &...
Shakil S/O Shri NasruddIn and ors. Vs. Nashir Khan S/O Sri Bashir Khan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3228
V.C. Misra, J.1. Mr. N.K. Trivedi, Advocate along with Mr. M.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents are present.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners Shakeel Ahmad and others filed a mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1901) on 18.4.1994 on the basis of civil court judgment dated 27.10.1983 passed in Original Suit No. 456. The Tehsildar allowed the mutation application on 23.6.1994, which was challenged by the respondents Nashir Khan, and others through their restoration application, which was allowed on 12.8.1994. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.1994 the petitioners Shakeel Ahmad and others filed a revision before the Additional District Magistrate, which was rejected on 9.2.1995. The petitioners Shakeel Ahmad Khan and others filed a second revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed on 1.3.1995 wi...
Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1955
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.1. The appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of.2. We have heard the arguments on law from both sides for two days and since the matter is essentially a legal one, the appeal is ripe for final disposal by us.3. The appeal is from the order passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge on the 11th of April, 2005, whereby his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner.4. The facts of this case, so far as the legal point is concerned, lie within a very brief compass. By reason of the order passed in the department, which was impugned in the writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner was deprived of the balance pay during the period of one year, when he was under suspension (from 14.12.1990 to 4.1.1991).5. The writ petitioner has now retired. However, the adverse order will still subsist and operate against him unless he is successful in the appeal.6. The charge against the writ petitioner was with regard to four magazines only, which we...
Prem Shanker Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3345
A.K. Yog and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No. 2, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is the contesting respondent.3. Petitioner and the contesting respondent have exchanged affidavits by filing counter and rejoinder. Respondent No. 1 has neither filed counter-affidavit nor appears to be affected contesting party.4. The writ petition is being decided at 'admission' stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 (1) 2nd proviso, Rules of Court, 1952.5. Prem Shanker Gupta and Om Prakash Singhal, the two petitioners before us, were allotted 'commercial platforms' by NOIDA on 27.12.1993/ Annexure-1 and 25.5.1989/ Annexure-2 to the petition. Subsequently NOIDA floated a 'Scheme' in the year 2001 for allotment of residential flats and plots indicating various categories, bans of reservation and other terms and conditions. Commercial establishments and 'persons allotted commercial platforms' were placed in separate category for re...
Smt. Sushma Singh W/O Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secre ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3358; 2005(2)ESC1537
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste and her certificate dated 06.08.1992 to be valid certificate and she should be permitted to continue as a Scheduled Caste Jatav caste and she should also be permitted to have all the benefits belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that, Claims herself to be a Jain by birth. However, she got married with one Pal Singh (Jatav - Scheduled Caste) and, therefore, she should be permitted to have the benefits belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Her nomination paper was not accepted in the earlier elections in 1992 for reserved constituency being not a Scheduled Caste by birth. Hence this petition. 3. Shri Tejpal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was undoubtedly a Jain and got married with a Scheduled Caste. Once she had been accepted by the people of the Scheduled Caste and by ma...
Ram Kripal S/O Raghu Nath Prasad and Smt. Bimla Devi W/O Sri Ram Kripa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All325; 2005(3)AWC2076
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Zamal AN and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi for the respondents in F.A.F.O. No. 276 of 2005 and Sri S.K. Shukla for the appellant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi for the respondent in F.A.F.O. No. 1530 of 2004 and have gone through the record.2. F.A.F.O. No. 276 of 2005, Ram Kripal and Anr. v. Smt. Manju has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5.3.2005 passed by Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur, in Misc. Application No. 25/74 of 2004, whereby the application moved by Smt. Manju under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act 1980 was allowed and it was directed that Shanker @ Kalloo, minor aged about 4 years, who is grandson of Ram Kripal and Smt. Bimla Devi be handed over under the guardianship of Smt. Manju sister of mother of Shanker @ Kalloo and a copy of the order dated 5.3.2005 was sent to the police station concerned for compliance.3. F.A.F.O. No. 1530 of 2004 has been preferred a...
Parashu Ram Singh S/O Late Gorakh Nath Singh Vs. the State of U.P. Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR283]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. In a mafia style operation, a local MLA having a criminal record was allegedly gunned down in broad daylight on 25.1.2005. It is alleged that the person behind the killing was the defeated candidate and brother of a sitting Member of Parliament. The incident led to a public outcry. Sporadic incidents of public outrage was shown by the citizens, openly demonstrating on the streets protesting the lackadaisical attitude of the administration in not handling the situation. The police and the District Administration watched as silent spectators from a distance which further aggravated the matter. To quell the sporadic violence of riots and arson, the administration acted in arresting the persons named in the First Information Report. The petitioner who was the Station Officer of Dhoomanganj Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the incident took place, was also suspended by an order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated 30.1.2005. This order of sus...
Ravindra Kumar S/O Shri Pardesi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Through Its S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR341]
Tarun Agarawala, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.2. It transpires that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable and was recruited on 3.3.2004. After his recruitment the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 30.10.2004 intimating the authorities that he had been acquitted in a criminal case on 13.9.2004. Based on the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondents issued an order dated 12.4.2005 cancelling his appointment on the post of Constable on the ground that he had furnished false information. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no deliberate concealment on the part of the petitioner in suppressing the fact about his involvement in a criminal case. He further submitted that the petitioner has now been acquitted and therefore, there was no wilful concealment on the part of the petitioner. The fact ...
Mint Panchseel Colony Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: [2005]278ITR640(All)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It is pleaded that the petitioner, who is an assessee, is engaged in manufacturing and export of ready-made garments to various countries.3. There were nine export consignments relating to the financial year 1993-94 which could not be realised during the prescribed period, i.e., September 30, 1994. In that view of the matter the petitioner had made applications (numbering 4) under Section 80HHC(2)(a) under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which contemplates that the assessee should apply within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf.4. In this respect, para. 10 of the writ petition is relevant which is quoted below--'That the petitioner has moved an application seeking extension of time up to January, 1995, vide letter dated October 15, 1994. The petitioner apprised the Department with the subsequent developments, i.e., efforts made towards realisation and fu...
Pratap Singh S/O Ayodhya Pra(Sic)ad Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC758
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is a Personal Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and has approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 11.2.2005 by which his application for medical leave had been rejected and was asked to report for duty. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.2.2005 by which he has been suspended pending contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on account of the fact that the Commissioner was inimical towards the petitioner and was bent upon in not only harassing the petitioner in various ways but systematically in order to suspend the petitioner for various charges. The petitioner has alleged maladies against the Commissioner and further submitted that even otherwise the charges levelled against the petitioners were not serious in nature which if proved in the enquiry proceedings would not result in the passing of...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »