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.
Nikhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1434
ORDERU.K. Dhaon and V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.1. Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 3.3.2003 and 26.6.2003 passed by the opposite parties contained in Annexures-1 and 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that he joined as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the Public Works Department of the State of U.P., on 14.3.1969. The petitioner has further alleged that for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) the requirement was 10 years service in substantive capacity as Junior Engineer. The petitioner has further alleged that he completed 10 years of service as Junior Engineer on 14.3.1979 and was confirmed w.e.f. 1.3.1980 and thereafter the name of the petitioner alognwith others were sent to the Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical).3. The learned Counsel f...
Vishal Pandey S/O Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Through I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC527
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the record.The petitioner claims to have purchased the property of Hotel Vivek in the year 2007 and re-named it as Hotel Kanishka. Electricity meter was also transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser i.e. Shri Vishal Pandey. He has deposited the required amount for transfer if of the Electricity meter in his own name.2. It appears that thereafter electricity raid was conducted on 11.10.2007 by the Electricity department in the premises of petitioner's Hotel Kanishka and a report was prepared by the officers of the raiding party interalia, that the petitioner had indulged in the theft of electricity by way of cable wire which was directly attached from the electricity poll to the main connection. An FIR was also lodged on 13.10.2007 against younger brother of the petitioner that he had...
Abhishek Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2009All77
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Rajiv Nayan Singh and Sri Raj Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has appeared for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21-4-2008, passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, rejecting the application dated 26-12-2006 submitted by the petitioner praying for a certificate of dependent of freedom fighter of late Bireshwar Sharma. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus, directing the respondent No. 1 to release/grant the family pension to the petitioner as dependent of freedom fighter.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; late Bireshwar Sharma was a freedom fighter. Bireshwar Sharma, died in the year 1952 levying behind his ...
Smt. Kusma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC145
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Gram Pradhan of village Bayara, Tehsil Domariyaganj, district Siddharthnagar resigned from the post of Gram Pradhan on 13.5.2008 which was accepted on 27.7.2008. Thereafter the members of the Gram Panchayat submitted a representation before respondent No. 3, the Block Development Officer, Domariaganj, district Siddharthnagar, to call a meeting of Gram Panchayat for nomination of temporary Gram Pradhan. Another representation was also moved on 1.9.2008 to the District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar for nomination of temporary Gram Pradhan.3. It appears that an agenda was issued on 4.9.2008 in which it has been stated that a meeting of gram Panchayat will be held on 9.9.2008 with regard to nomination of Pradhan, but that meeting could not take place and hence the member of the Gram Panchayat submitted a representation on 15.9.2008 before the District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar bringing these facts to his knowledge, who nominated re...
Ram Sundar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1435
A.N. Varma, J.1. One Ramraji was owner of plot No. 932 situate in village Shivdaha, Pargana, tahsll and district Bahraich. She died issuless on 8.11.1982. The petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 claimed rights to her property on the basis of Will said to have been executed by her in their favour. Proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act were thus initiated by the opposite party No. 2 which culminated in his favour. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which abated on village having been notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter the petitioner filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act which were barred by limitation by one and half years. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred praying therein for condonation of delay in filing the objections. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20th July, 2005 allowed the app...
Anil Sharma Vs. Rajan Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2009All68; 2009(1)AWC152
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. An application was filed by the respondent No. 1 for appointment of a receiver under Order XL of the C.P.C. This application was allowed by an order dated 26.4.2008. The Civil Judge, while allowing the application, directed the parties to submit two names for the purpose of appointing a receiver. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. The said revision was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.2. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri D. K. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.3. The learned senior counsel submitted that at the present moment, a receiver has not been appointed and only an application of the opposite party was allowed. Consequently, till such time, as a receiver was not appointed, no appeal under Section 43, Rule 1 (s...
Kapil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC910
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.1.2007, passed by the Hon'ble single Judge dismissing the appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40099 of 2006, this intra-court appeal under the rules of the Court has been preferred by the appellant contending that there is no substantial distinction between a regular employee and a seasonal employee and, therefore, once the scheme for compassionate appointment was extended and adopted for regular employees, the same would be deemed applicable to the seasonal employees. It is further contended that being a seasonal employee, the father of the petitioner-appellant had a right to be engaged continuously in the successive seasons, meaning thereby, for all purposes he was a regular employee and, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of the provisions of compassionate appointment only on the basis that the petitioner-appellant's father was engaged as seasonal employee. Lastly, it is contended that the sugar co...
Meena Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC966
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Shyam Maurya, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5, Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. With the consent of the parties this special appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for counter-affidavit, in view of the order proposed to be passed today.3. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge dated 13.10.2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable.4. The Hon'ble single Judge has observed that the appointment of Shiksha Mitra is contractual in nature and they are paid honorarium. They are not Government servant in any case.5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Shiksha Mitra is appointed in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time and the a...
Shahab UddIn Alias Munnan Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC154
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard, Shri S. D. Kautilya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bakhtiyar Yusuf, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of the award. Subsequently, an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was filed by the respondents stating therein that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter was with the District Judge, and therefore, the said application may be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction. The District Judge, by the impugned order dated 3.10.2008, allowed the application of the respondents, holding that the application under Section 36 of the Act, could only be decided by the court of District Judge and not by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). ...
Mewa Lal Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC563
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Civil Suit No. 2 of 1972 was decreed by the trial court by an order dated 25.3.1985. The said decree was put in execution. The petitioner, being a stranger, filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the C.P.C. alleging that the property in question cannot be attached or put to auction, inasmuch as, the trial court had earlier rejected an application of the plaintiff for attachment of the property before judgment which was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner's objection was rejected by the executing court against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition.2. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner lacks merit. The application of the plaintiff rejecting the application for attachment of the property before the judgment, was an interlocutory order, which was passed during the pendency of the suit and would not operate as res judicata insofar as the execution of the decree is concerned.3. The learned Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »