Allahabad Court January 2008 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.
Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR722]
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage itself.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was given, appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 on supernumerary Class IV post on 20.7.1998 whereupon he joined on 20.8.1998. Subsequently, he was appointed as a junior clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4500 also on a supernumerary post by the order dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure No 2 to the writ petition). At the time when the petitioner was given appointment, the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was declared as a dying cadre. However, subsequently, the said cadre has been revived and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner (as stated in paragraph 9 to the writ petition) there are...
Dhara Singh Girls High School Through Its Manager, Virendra Chaudhary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2008All92; 2008(1)AWC790
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner's institution to give information as sought by respondent No. 5.3. Further a writ of mandamus is also sought for restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner's institution for not giving information to respondent No. 5 as directed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad.4. The ground on the basis of which the relief sought is that the petitioner is a private institution which has been recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad receiving grant-in-aid by the State Government does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, hence the institution cannot be compel...
Kallu Pal Son of Langad (Daroga), Vs. State of U.P. and Smt. Nirmala D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3229
V.D. Chaturvedi, J.1. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have entered into the house of the complainant (opposite party No. 2), have fired a: her and have beaten her. But the opposite party No. 2 escaped narrowly and did not sustain any fire arm injury.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants contends that under the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 202 Cr.P.C., it was incumbent upon the magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all of his witnesses and to examine them on Oath; that the magistrate, contrary to the said provisions of law, summoned the petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for the offence Under Section 307 IPC without examining the doctor and other witnesses.3. The word 'his witness' occurring in the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is of material significance. The formal witnesses, such as doctor, Investigation Officer, Executive Magistrate, Police constable etc are net under the command of the complainant. They are not the witn...
Rekha (Kinner) Son of Kameshwar Vs. State of U.P. Through Chief Secret ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1139
Anjani Kumar and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.1. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, Sri Ranjan Srivastava for respondent No. 5 and Sri U.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7.2. The petitioner, who is the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, district Mirzapur, which is a Municipal 3oard constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (In short 'Act of 1916'), approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to quash the order dated 19th December, 2007, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'20' to the writ petition, whereby the State government in purporting exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 48 of 'Act of 1916' has passed the order ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner, pending enquiry in the matters of charges levelled against the petitioner.3. Learne...
B.C. Malviya Son of Jagdeo Prasad Malviya and ors. Vs. the State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR450]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4th April, 2006 (Annexure-25) by which the respondent No. 4 has been granted seniority over and above the present petitioners.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 4 had been working as Auditor. The respondent No. 4 was senior to the present petitioners as he had been appointed prior to them on the post of Auditor. The respondent No. 4 was promoted on ad-hoc basis as Senior Auditor but was reverted to the post of Auditor because of the adverse entries given to him. During regular selection for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor he was found unsuitable and therefore superseded. The present petitioners who were junior to the said respondent No. 4 in the feeding cadre were selected and appointed on 03-05-1983 on the post of Senior Auditor on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on reg...
Shyam NaraIn Tiwari S/O Sri Ram Kinkar Tiwari, Vs. Additional District ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1266
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision of the petitioners filed against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.4.1977, by which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.4.1975.3. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the writ petition are; that the disputes relates to two plots i.e. plot No. 291 area 22 decimal of Khata No. 231, plot No. 291/1, area 11 decimal of Khata No. 177, which in the basic year were recorded in the names of Mahadeo, Ram Lalla sons of Thakur Prasad and the possession of Ram Pratap was noted. In plot No. ...
Krishna Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Bali Ram Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR711]
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand, learned standing counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Uttar Pradesh rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 6th October, 2004 claiming addition of period of his ad-hoc appointment from 8.1.1975 till 7th April, 1981 for seniority. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list computing the seniority of the petitioner from the date of initial joining, i.e., with effect from 8th January, 1975.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Government Inter College, Arakot (Uttarkashi) on temporary basis by order of the Director of Education dated 24th December, 1974 in pursuance of which he joined on ...
Shiv Kant Tripathi S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad Tripathi Vs. State o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)SLJ125(NULL)
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi a Judicial Officer in the State of U.P. working on the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was compulsorily retired in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (in short 'F.R.-56') vide order dated 17th May 2005. Aggrieved thereto, he has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on his original post and not to interfere with his functioning as Additional Civil Judge (S.D.).2. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif [now designated as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] in the year 1978. While posted as Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, an adverse remark was recorded in his Annual Character Roll (hereinafter referred to as 'A.C.R.') for the year 1994-95 by the then District Judge, Unnao and he also recommended for departmenta...
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur Region Through Sri A.S. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR397]
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant were heard.2. Joint Regional Director, E.S.I., Kanpur passed two orders against respondents. One order was passed on 15.09.1982, which was slightly modified on 07.01.1983. The other order was passed on 21.04.1983. Against both the orders, respondents filed appeals before Employees Insurance Court, Saharanpur under Section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'E.S.I. Act'). The appeals were registered as Appeal No. 22 of 1983 & Appeal No. 95 of 1983 and were disposed of by common judgment dated 06.01.1986 by State Employees Insurance Court/S.D.M., Nakur, District Saharanpur. The said judgments have been challenged through these appeals.3. The Joint Regional Director had imposed penalty under Section 85B, E.S.I. Act as well as directed payment of interest under Regulation 31-A of the Regulations framed under the Act...
Sharda Chitra Mandir Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2008]301ITR230(All)
1. The question of law on which this appeal has been admitted is as follows:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the grant-in-aid of Rs. 6,07,788.94 received by the appellant under the scheme of the State Government, introduced with the object to promote the construction of new and permanent cinema halls in backward areas as per the Government policy dated July 21, 1986, as revenue receipt rather than capital receipt in the hands of the assessee2. An identical question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalpana Palace v. CIT : [2005]275ITR365(All) , and answered in favour of the assessee by holding the subsidy to be a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. On the facts we do not think that the present case to be different than the case of the Kalpana Palace : [2005]275ITR365(All) .3. Although, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department has submitted that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »