Allahabad Court June 2007 Judgments

Usman Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3868

ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A foe the State.2. The petitioner has challenged his detention in jail in pursuance of judgment and order dated 7.2.2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2617 of 1981.3. The appellant was convicted by Session's Judge, Ghaziabad, in S.T.No. 106 of 1977 under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years. The petitioner has challenged his conviction in this Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No. 2617 of 1981. The said appeal was partly allowed and the petitioner was convicted under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. The petitioner was further directed to pay, a fine of Rs. 7000/- within 3 months from the date of judgment failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years.4. The petitioner failed to deposit the fine within the stipulated time. He deposited the fine after expiry of the said period. The petitioner has filed a certific...

Prof. Ramesh Chandra, Vice Chancellor Bundelkhand University Vs. State ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3181

B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2005 At passed by the Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as well as the enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Vice-Chancellor, of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') which was established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This was his second tenure of three years and was in continuity of his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 and was to come to an end on 31 July, 2005 but the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 16th July, 2005 purporting to exercise his powers under Section 12(12) of the Act removed the petitioner. The said removal order was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 24th June, 2005 issued by the Chancellor of the University whereby the ...

Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Ministry of Railway and ors. V ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3712

B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the interest on the amount withheld unjustifiedly by the present petitioner, Union of India for a period of 9 years.2. Shri Piyush Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the ex gratia payment from July, 1995 to June, 2004, i.e., for a period of 9 years has been withheld without any justification. Therefore, interest on the said amount was not payable. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the amount of ex gratia payment to the respondent was illegal, as her deceased husband was not entitled for pension, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by Shri Mishra that though this issue has never been...

Smt. Kamla Devi (Widow of Late Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This O.A. has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide letter No. 769-E-2/Pensions/Feb 2004 dated 21.12.2004 by which the widow applicant has been denied family pension after the death of her husband who died in harness on the false plea that her husband Late Ram Kishun was a temporary status employee and not a regular Railway servant. The applicant has sought that this Tribunal direct the respondents, (i) to grant family pension and other balance pensionary benefits and pay the balance dues (i.e. subsistence allowance) arrears of family pension as admissible under the rules alongwith 12% interest on delayed payment of all admissible amounts payable to her as per rules; (ii) Tribunal to direct award of compensation for harassment caused to the applicant for wrongful denial of family pension.2. The husband of the applicant was appointed in the Railways as a casual labourer prior to 01.08.1978 and after work...

V.K. Yadav S/O Shri D.S. Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The present O.A. is filed against the order dated 09.04.2002 (Annexure A-I) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby in pursuance of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Judgment dated 25.05.2001 the representation of the applicant dated 22.03.2001 was rejected and respondent No. 3 was directed to implement the transfer order of the applicant, transferring him to AGE (I) Talbehat and report compliance by 15.05.2002.2. The applicant joined the respondent establishment at IMA, Dehradun as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f. 22.04.1972. Due to his unblemished record, the applicant was granted second upgradation and is presently working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Office of the AE I, Raiwala under CWE, Dehradun in the grade Rs.5000-150-8000 and has been discharging his functions to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The applicant had a massive heart attack on 08.12.1999. After hospitalization and based on medical advise the applicant remained on leave ...

S.M.R. Naqvi Son of Late S.N. Naqvi Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. Applicant S.M.R. Naqvi posted as head Master at Kendriya Vidyalaya Air Force Station Bamrauli, Allahabad is challenging order dated 13.8.2006 (A-1) by which he has been transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Singrauli, in Madhya Pradesh, on the grounds interalia, that it is in breach of para 15.1. and 15.2. of the Guidelines dated 14.3.2006 (A-2) and also unjust for the reasons mentioned in Para 4 (xx) (xxi), (xxii) and (xxiii).2. The sum and substance of his case as disclosed in the OA and the Rejoinder affidavit is that since his retirement is due on 31.5.2009 so he was covered by the expression "LTR" and was in the category of persons whose dislocation was to be avoided (CDA). He says that the respondents No. 1-5 have professed to have effected the transfer in question in terms of para 15.1 of latest guidelines dated 14.3.06, but have ignored other part of the same guidelines which says that as far as possible employee falling in CDA category should not be disturbed or dislocated so ...

Fragrant Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jagdish Katuriy ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3880

ORDERM.K. Mittal, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28-8-2004 passed by C.J.M., Varanasi in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4015 of 2004 under Section 138, N.I. Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act) whereby learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the charge for which he stood trial.2. Heard Sri N.M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Sameer Jain, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that complainant No. 2 was the employee of the complainant No. 1 Fragrant Leasing and Finance Company Limited and had been authorised to present the complaint. The complainant No. 1 used to provide financial assistance after completing the requisite formalities required for adjustment of loan. Accused took a loan of Rs. 11 lacs from complainant No. 1 and in order to repay the loan issued two cheques...

Smt. Santosh Kumari Wife of Late Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3869

Vinod Prasad, J.1. Smt. Santosh Kumari, widow of Raja Ram, resident of Milavali, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Etah has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the impugned order dated 21.9.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in Misc. Case No. 387 of 2006 be quashed. By the impugned order her prayer seeking order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of her FIR for offence of murder of her husband in a fake and false encounter by the police was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah and her said application was ordered to be registered as a complaint case was passed by the CJM concerned and complaint case No. 6130 of 2006 was registered treating the application under Section 156(3) as a complaint.2. The factual matrix of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah being Misc. Application No. 387...