Allahabad Court March 2006 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.
Damodar Sharma Son of Sedhu Ram Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2264
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.2. As agreed between the parties, this application is being finally disposed off. The F.I.R. was filed by the applicant against the accused persons. In the said F.I.R., the final report was submitted by the police after investigation. The protest petition of the applicant was registered as complaint and the statement of the applicant and his witness were recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After recording the said statement, which have been filed as annexure No. 6 to the affidavit appended along with this application the trial court is postponing the summoning of the accused and has issued notices for appearance of the accused persons in this case.3. The procedure adopted by the trial court is wholly illegal. The trial court, which has registered the protest petition as a complaint and has recorded the statement under Sections 200-202 Cr.P.C. was bound to pass an order either under Section 203 o...
President Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma Sikshan Sansthan Mahavidyalaya Samiti ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All238; 2006(2)AWC1737
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition challenges the order dated 6.5.2005, passed by the trial court and order dated 19.12.2005, passed by the revisional court. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners-defendants in which the plaintiff presented an application under Order XI, Rule 12, C.P.C. for discovery of certain documents. Initially the said application was dismissed vide order dated 4.4.2005 (Annexure-6) stating that the application was not supported with affidavit and the defendants petitioners had denied possession of those documents sought to be discovered. Thereafter, a second application stated to be under Section 151, C.P.C. was moved with the same prayer, which has been allowed by the impugned order. This application was supported with affidavit. The revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioners stating that the revisional court would not go into the factual matters and thus, the revisi...
Anand Swaroop S/O Late Sukkhan Lal Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2602; II(2006)DMC113
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. Misc. Application No. 222891 of 2005 has been moved by the applicant-revisionists for recalling the judgment and order dated 5.8.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 1998, Anand Swaroop and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., and Misc. Application No. 222899 of 2005 has been moved by the same applicant-revisionists for recalling the order of same date passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1863 of 1998, Anand Swaroop and Ors. v. Brij Bhushan Parashar.2. Since the parties to the above cases are common and common question of law are involved therein, I have heard both the cases together and now I am deciding them by a common order.3. The facts relevant for disposal of these two applications are that Brij Bhushan Parashar (opposite party in both the cases) had lodged a report against the accused applicants at police station Parikshit Garh district Meerut and on the basis of that report a case under Sections 304B and 201 I.P.C. was registered aga...
Smt. Simar Jeet Kaur Wife of Sri Jaiveer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Prad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3270
Arun Tandon, J.1. Petitioner who is employed as Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was placed under suspension by an order dated 18.2.2006 on the basis of an episode telecast by Star News Channel on 17.2.2006. A preliminary enquiry was directed into the facts as noticed in the episode. The officer conducting the preliminary enquiry submitting a report to the effect that the petitioner was guilty of demanding illegal gratification for ensuring that persons mentioned in the report are not harassed by the police. On the basis of the report so submitted which according to the petitioner is wholly ex parte, the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut by means of the order dated 21.2.2006 has decided to dismiss the petitioner from service without holding, departmental proceedings in exercise of powers under Rule 8(2) Proviso (B) of the 1991 Rules. This order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut is under challenged in the present writ petition.2. Counsel for the pet...
Hari Shankar JaIn Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3893
Dharam Veer Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, a practising advocate, has initiated the Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction. He has prayed for following reliefs:(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties to ensure that no advocate who is connected/associated with a Judge or he has been a counsel for or against such Judge, be allowed or made to appear in his Court and to further ensure that their cases are not listed before such Hon'ble Judges;(ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the interest of Justice;(iii) allow the petition with costs.2. The petitioner has argued that no advocate should appear before any Judge with whom they are connected or associated in any manner. In case. if any counsel has ever been engaged by a Judge before or after his elevation, then the counsel should not be allo...
Khursheed Ahmad and anr. Vs. Gulzar Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All280; 2006(3)AWC3162
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This petition challenges the order dated 9.1.2006, passed by the revisional court in a suit of petitioner where respondent No. 3 was shown as a minor defendant.3. Summons had been issued to the defendants for filing written statement and also fixing a date for framing issues. In pursuance to those summons, the defendants, who were major, had appeared and the father of the minor defendant had moved an application for his appointment as his guardian. The Court without disposing of that petition or the application of the plaintiff-petitioner made in that behalf for appointment of guardian under Order XXXII, Rule 3, C.P.C., has further proceeded in the suit and the orders were passed rejecting defendants' application for admitting the written statement. This order was passed by the trial court on the ground that more than ninety days had passed since the appearance of the defendants, beyond which no written statement co...
Committee of Management, Sri Raghuvar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1678
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and Standing Counsel on behalf of the state respondents.2. Sri Raghuvar Dayal Pathak Inter College; Jakhan, District Etawah is an institution recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The said institution is run and managed in accordance with the approved scheme of administration as contemplated by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The institution was established by a society registered in the name and style of Sri Raghuvar Dayal Pathak Vidyalaya, Jakhan, Etawah.3. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to the exact scheme of administration applicable to the said institution as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in pursuance thereof. Undisputed elections of the office bearers of the society as well as Committee of Management of the institution were held on 28th July, 1996 and in the ...
Vinita Singh D/O Tribhuwan Nath Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1738
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 6th of September, 2005 whereby the case of the appellant-writ petitioners has been dismissed.2. Before giving my judgment I must make it clear that I was within a hair's breadth of allowing the appeal and granting relief to the writ petitioners, or, at least, referring the matter to a lull Bench. However, I ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal and I do so with the utmost lack of confidence.3. The facts are very simple. The appellants are all daily wagers with the Co-operative Bank, and they were all appointed after 30th June, 1998; they all have appointment letters in their favour; their appointments were all terminable with just a simple notice, like those of employees who are not permanent public employees. Although their wages were calculated on the basis of a daily rate, it was multiplied by 30 or 31, and they were paid not on a daily basis, but on a monthly basis. T...
Shiv Shanker Saxena Son of Late Uma Shanker Saxena Vs. the State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3719
V.M. Sahai and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) whereby his services were dispensed with by disciplinary measure while he was working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer. It appears that while working as incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer on account of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner he was placed under suspension on 7.8.2004 pending disciplinary inquiry against him. In pursuance thereof a charge sheet dated 6/7.8.2004 containing as many as six charges was served upon him. In the aforesaid charge sheet in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner various documents were mentioned to be relied upon in disciplinary inquiry to be held against the petitioner. On receipt of the charge sheet the petitioner moved an application on 10.9.2004 (Annexure-12 of the writ petition) praying for the copy of certain documents to reply...
Chandra Kant Vs. A.D.J. (Court No. 6) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1682
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent counsel is not present in spite of the list having been revised.3. Counter-affidavit was filed on some earlier date on behalf of respondent No. 2.4. This petition challenges the order dated 20.10.2005 restoring the suit after granting the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.5. The learned Counsel contends that the suit was initially filed by respondent No. 3 for specific performance of contract of a registered agreement of sale and the petitioner was made a proforma defendant, Since the agreement of sale was also executed in favour of the petitioner he applied to the trial court to be transposed as plaintiff and the same was allowed. The petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 are the real brothers. The petitioner was staying away from the village and was working in Calcutta. The pairvi of the case was being done by his brother, respondent No. 3. It is alleged that responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »