Allahabad Court September 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.
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1271
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The orders under challenge are passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 24 of 1981-82 confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 23.12.1981 in Appeal No. 360D of 1980.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the petitioners and respondents are descendants of common ancestor Jagannath. The petitioners instituted a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaration of their Co-bhumidhari rights in the disputed plot. The basis of their claim was that the disputed land was ancestral. After the written statement was filed, the said suit was withdrawn. Subsequently, the Suit No. 2049 of 1979 was instituted, a copy of the plaint is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 3 to 7 admitted the claim of the petitioners and they admitted before t...
Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1791
Pradeep Kant and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. The delay of 43 days in filing the appeal has been appropriately explained by the appellant. The objections against the said prayer of condoning of delay are not sufficient to deprive the appellant his right of appeal to challenge the impugned orders which are per se illegal. The delay is, therefore, condoned.2. After condoning the delay we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits with the consent of the parties' counsel.3. The appellant had claimed appointment on compassionate ground as his father Sri Jagadamba Prasad Pandey died in harness, while working with the Bank of India in one of its Branches at Lucknow. The Bank refused to consider the case for compassionate appointment after observing that since the father of the petitioner was awarded punishment for gross misconduct of misutilizing leave fare concession facility, therefore, the appellant cannot given compassionate appointment.4. The learned single Judge, however dismissed the writ pet...
Kuljeet Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1794
Pradeep Kant and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, and learned additional chief standing counsel Sri Rakesh Bajpai.2. The petitioners licensee under the provisions of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 are running a cinema hall known as 'Vishal Picture Palace' in Utraula, district Balrampur. On 31st December, 2005 the police came to the aforesaid cinema hall after the evening show was over and arrested two of the employees of the cinema hall and also took away the reel/print of the movie which was running at that time in the cinema hall.3. The First Information Report was registered under Section 292C of the Indian Penal Code on 31.12.2005 and the licence of the petitioners was suspended by the District Magistrate, Balrampur on 9.1.2006 which is still under suspension. The District Magistrate required the petitioners to deposit the income which they have derived from the objectionable shows, which amount to the tune of Rs....
Nagendra Rai Son of Late Jagdish Rai Vs. Registrar, U.P. Cooperative S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4110
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Nagendra Rai, Secretary, Sahroz Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Block Kopaganj, district Mau has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 13.04.2006 passed by Member/Secretary, District Administrative by means of which suspension which has been kept in abeyance on the earlier occasion on 30.06.2004 was withdrawn and order of suspension dated 17.06.2004 was restored. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34791 of 2006 has been filed by the same incumbent questioning the validity of the impugned order dated 22.06.2006 placing the petitioner under suspension by the Member/ Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Mau.2. Brief background of the litigation is that petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti limited. For non-taking of interest in realizing the dues of the society petitioner was sought to be placed under suspension on 17.06.2004 and Inquiry Officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry. In this ...
Dr. Vinod Shukla, Son of Krishnadeo Shukla Vs. the State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR795]
Amitava Lala, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the Annexure-13 being an order passed by the Secretary of the Institution allowing Dr. D.N. Singh, the respondent No. 5 to continue as Principal of the College until further orders.2. Admittedly, according to the petitioner the continuation of officiation would be restricted for a period of three months as per first statute 10.20 of the Purvanchal University. Such statute is still existing. The petitioner has filed the writ petition saying that he is continuing on the post as officiating Principal from the year 2002 and only when he obtained a leave of 40 days, Sri D.N. Singh-respondent No. 5 was appointed as officiating Principal. Therefore, when he joined back on 25th August 2006, such date will be treated to be a cut off date for inclusion of the petitioner on the post of officiating Principal in the place and instead of respondent No. 5.3. It appears to this Court that the post of the Principal is vacant for a considerable perio...
Bhu Deo Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All29
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner and the private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are all real brothers. Two suits were filed by the petitioner against the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Original Suit No. 327 of 1992 was for partition; and Original Suit No. 418 of 1992 was for permanent injunction. After tiling of the written statements by the respondents in both the suits, the petitioner moved separate application for amendment of his plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court vide two separate orders dated 13-10-1999. Defendants filed two separate revisions against the aforesaid orders, which have been allowed by two separate orders dated 11-8-2000 and the amendment sought has been disallowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11-8-2000, these two writ petitions have been filed. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and also out of similar set of facts, they are being decided together.2. I have heard Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for the petitioner ...
Yogendra Kumar JaIn (Y.K. Jain) S/O Ishwar Prasad JaIn Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ198
Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.1. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Manager (Production, Planning and Development) at the headquarters of UP. Handloom Corporation Ltd. in Kanpur Nagar (in short, the Corporation). An order dated 27.2.2006 sanctioning his prosecution for an offence in case Crime No. EOW (investigation)-184/99 arising out of case Crime No. 143 of 1999 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, has been challenged by means of this writ petition.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The order dated 27.2.2006 (annexure - 22 to the writ petition) granting sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner shows that it was based on documentary and oral evidence collected by the Economic Offences Wing, CBCID, Kanpur Nagar, which investigated the case. The sanction order mentions inter alia that Janata Sarees UP-5 and UP-14 which was dispatched to Bangalore...
S.K. Awasthi S/O Late L.S. Awasthi Vs. the State of U.P. Represented b ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ382
Amar Saran, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Awasthi in person and learned Additional Government Advocate.2. The petitioner, who was an Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax (subsequently designated as Deputy Commissioner) has filed this writ petition for challenging the order dated 8.3.2006 sanctioning his prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granted by the State Government for an offence under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and consequent prosecution in case No. S.S.T. 5 of 2006 pending before the Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar.3. Essentially the allegations in the sanction order were that prior to receipt of the Power of Attorney from Manni Lal Gupta, the proprietor of the firm Gupta Steel Traders Kanpur, 25 forms No. 31 were issued to the representative of the aforementioned firm Shri Ram Asray on different dates. The said proprietor disappeared and as a result of the illegal issuance of forms 31 by the petitioner in conspiracy with the aforesaid firm, a loss o...
Tulsi S/O Billar and Ram Autar S/O Mathura Vs. Deputy Director of Cons ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC795
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Shrimati Gangajali died in 1971. On her death dispute arose regarding succession to the agricultural land left behind by her. Tulsi and others, original petitioners, based their claim upon succession as reversioners under Hindu Law and Lalji, petitioner in connected Writ Petition No. 3186 of 1975 claimed succession on the ground that he had been adopted by Shrimati Gangajali. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia through judgement and order dated 13.1.1975 passed in Revision No. 528, 529, 565 and 566 held that Shrimati Gangajali did not leave behind any heir, hence her agricultural property vested in State on the principle of escheat. The said judgement was challenged by both i.e. Tulsi and others and Lalji. Number of writ petition filed by Lalji was 3181 of 1975 . Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court through common judgement dated 13.11.1991. This Court held that adoption of Lalji by Gangajali has been prove...
Prem Chandra Dubey Son of Sri Raj Pati Dubey Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC810
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Shri H.C. Singh on behalf of the petitioner, Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. These four writ petitions have been filed by employees who have been working as Draftsmen in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. as well as by their Association. All these writ petitions are directed against the orders issued vide letter of the Director, Adhishthan Punarikshan Bureaue (Finance), U.P., Lucknow whereby after test checking it has been pointed out that payment of promotional pay scale as well as second promotional pay scale to the Draftsmen working in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. has wrongly been fixed accordingly consequential orders have been issued by the Engineer in Chief as well as by the other subordinate officers of the Irrigation Department for re-fixation of the same as well as for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners.3. For the purposes of the present writ petition the following facts may be recorded:P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »