Allahabad Court November 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.
Shyam Singh Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ494All
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. On oral prayer made by Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur as respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition.Necessary amendments will be made in the Writ Petition during the course of the day.2. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Notice dated September 10, 2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Recovery Officer/Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur (respondent No. 2).Further, prayer has also been made in the Writ Petition that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner under the Kshamadan Swikriti Yojana (Apology Accepting Scheme) by re-calculating the assessment dated February 9, 2004 as per rate and amount of wages fixed by the Officer of the respondents in the lett...
Sumant Kumar Rathi Son of Shri Bhaoo Prakash Rathi Vs. State of U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1453
Shiv Charan, J.The Instant application has been moved for cancellation of bail granted by learned Sessions Judge, Hathras to Opp. party No. 2 Rohit Jakhetia on 15.12.2006 in Crime No. 446 of 2006 under Section 498A,307 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Sikandra Rau District Hathras.1. Perusal of the record shows that complainant Sumant Kumar Rathi lodged FIR on 1.10.2006 with the allegations that marriage of his daughter namely Sachi was solemnized with Rohit Jakhetia according to Hindu rites on 15.2.2006. And that the dowry was delivered according to his capacity and capability to O.P. No. 2 and his parents. But they were not satisfied with the dowry and then he started harassing Sachi for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Even after one month of the marriage Rohit Jakhetia thrashed her for not fulfillment of demand of dowry and the mother in law used to state that her parents did not deliver a four wheel vehicle in the marriage and hence the O.P. No. 2 and his other relatio...
Rajesh Prasad Son of Mukhlal Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR1]
S.U. Khan, J.1. The petitioners of the last writ petition are also petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the first writ petition.2. Seven petitioners of writ petitions at serial No. 1 and 2 were selected and appointed on the post of Nalkoop Mistri in Ghazipur Mandal. The posts had been advertised in Daily Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagaran dated 12.08.2004. Petitioners and others were interviewed by duly constituted Selection committee on 28.01.2005 and petitioners were selected. On 29.01.2005 order appointing ail the seven petitioners was passed (Annexure-VI A). However the petitioners were neither given appointment letters nor they were actually appointed. They sought information under Right to Information Act 2005 and only then they were informed that they had been selected and appointed but their appointment had been first stayed by oral direction of irrigation Minister and thereafter it was cancelled on similar oral directions of the minister.3. Annexure 6-1 on page 47 is a communication by E...
Chauthi Ram Vs. Balli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC564
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The suit was decreed ex parte in the year 1991. The defendant came to know about the ex parte decree in the year 1996 and, accordingly moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree. Objections were filed by the plaintiff and the application was rejected by the trial court, against which, a Misc. Appeal was filed, which was also rejected. The defendant, being aggrieved by the rejection of his application, has preferred the present writ petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in the year 1988, in which the petitioner had appeared and contested and which was dismissed in the year 1989 and consequently the second suit was filed surreptitiously and deliberately the service of the summons was not made.4. The court below has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was ser...
Somaroo Vs. Smt. Prakriti Acharya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1098
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction. It transpires that the trial court proceeded ex parte against the defendants, but subsequently, an application for recall of the order was filed by one of the defendants, which was allowed by an order dated 17.11.2007 on payment of cost, pursuant to which, the written statement was filed and it was taken on record. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court praying that the written statement should not be taken on record and should be rejected in view of the fact that the written statement was filed after the stipulated period, provided under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was rejected by the trial court, against which, a revision was filed, which was also rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 15(b)(iv) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment A...
Abdul Mahmood Vs. Advocate General and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1428
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing learned Advocate General U.P., to decide the application filed by the petitioner and proforma respondents on 8.9.2008, under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4;(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; and(iii) Award the cost of this petition.2. Writ petition has been strongly opposed by the learned Chief Standing Counsel of the State as well as Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad by making various submissions including the maintainability of the writ petition and the order.3. The case before us is that the suit is pending before the appropriate civil court. An application for injunction was also made, but no order was passed. According to the Allahabad ...
Dwarika Prasad Pandey Vs. Harish Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC889
Devi Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.Present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the impugned award dated 22.7.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 6 of 2002.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:The appellant suffered an accident with Jeep No. U.P.-32 Z-5939 on 10.4.2001 at 4.30 evening in district Barabanki near Mayur Hotel because of careless and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The appellant suffered serious multiple injuries resulting into fracture of chest and backbone alongwith other minor injuries. Because of injuries caused in the said accident, the appellant has become permanently disabled and lost his capacity to move on his own leg.The appellant, being permanently disabled and par...
Sunil Pathak Vs. Gunja Alias Gunjan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC561
V.M. Sahai and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is that in a district where family court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984, had not been established and the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act 1955') is heard by District Judge whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act or a revision under Section 115, C.P.C. or a writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie.2. The stamp reporter had 'submitted two reports on 17.11.2008 and 20.11.2008 that appeal would not 'lie under Section 19(1) under the Family Courts Act against an order passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur as no family court has been established in the district.3. The facts in brief are that appellant/husband has filed Marriage Suit No. 14 of 2008 before the District Judge, Ghazipur under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for divorce against the respondent. In the suit an app...
Shobha Kant Chaturvedi Vs. Hon'ble the Addl. District Judge 2nd, Etawa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC568
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is the decree holder and had purchased a plot in the year 1974. In the sale-deed, an easementary right was provided permitting the plaintiff to flow the waste water from the northern portion of the plot. It transpires that the defendant judgment debtor had no right or title of the land in question but interfered in the possession and obstructed the easementary right of the plaintiff. This resulted in the filing of Suit No. 331 of 1976 for a permanent injunction and, during its pendency, the parties arrived at a compromise and the suit was decreed in terms of the said compromise which became part of the decree which stipulated that the plaintiff would construct a permanent drain towards the northern portion and would have a right to flow the waste water and that the flow of water as well as the right of air would not be obstructed by the defendants over the area shown by the letter 'Cha', 'Jha', 'Kha' ...
Dr. Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1793
ORDERD.V. Sharma, J.1. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 1-12-2005 passed in criminal revision No. 217 of. 2005 by District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.2. Factual matrix is as under:An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that on 5-6-2000, the husband of the opposite party No. 2, namely, Prakash Chandra Raheja was admitted at Sheikhar Nursing Hospital, Lucknow. Dr. A. K. Sachan was the Managing Director of the Hospital and Dr. Deepak Agarwal was the main surgeon-cum-architect of the Hospital. On 6-6-2000 various investigation was conducted at the Hospital and on the advice of the doctor E.R.C.P. of late Prakash Chandra Raheja was done. He developed pain immediately during post operative period. The pain did not subside from 6-6-2000 onwards and he went in coma on 8-6-2000 with persistence of tachycardia and tachyponea. The condition of Sri Raheja deteriorated to the extent of his having developed respiratory ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »