Allahabad Court February 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.
Charan Singh Son of Bisa Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Secret ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1507
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Rameshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Members of Gram Panchayat have given a notice to Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikdari, Aligarh on 05.01.2008 for the removal of Gram pradhan under Rule 33-B of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') He submitted that under Rule 33-B (2) of the Rules, District Panchayat Raj Adhikari is under obligation to convene a meeting of Gram Panchayat under Section 14 of the Act before the expiry of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. He submitted that in the present case, the notice was given on 05.01.2008 and thirty days have expired on 04.02.2008 but the meeting has not been convened Learned Standing Counsel submitted that necessary direction be issued to District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Aligarh to convene the meeting under Section 33-B (2) of...
Dr. Hausila Prasad Sharma Vs. Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR269]
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (the university) on 26.5.1985 for taking evening classes. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.6.1987 as evening classes were being slopped. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was decided with the observation that the petitioner should file a reference before the Chancellor. The petitioner filed the reference. This was decided on 29.11.1990 with the direction to the University to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (the Act).2. A meeting of Executive Council of the University was held on 24.9.1993. However, the case of the petitioner could not be considered as the records pertaining to the petitioner were not placed before the Executive Council. The case of the petitioner was again reconsidered on 21.1.1996 and it was rejected mentioning therein that the...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Masjood Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR586]
B.S. Chauhan and Bharati Sapru, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned Judgment and order dated 1st February, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, partly while accepting the case of the present petitioner i.e., Railway Administration that the respondent No. 1 has rightly been given the punishment of compulsory retirement but further directed to give the appointment on compassionate ground to his son on humanitarian consideration.2. List revised. None appeared for the respondents.We have heard Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and have perused the records.3. Learned Tribunal while concluding the Judgment has categorically held that the department was legally justified in giving the compulsory retirement to the said employee. Therefore; after reaching the said conclusion, there, was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to issue any other direction, and the direction so issued by the Tribunal in pa...
C.i.T. Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(All)281; [2009]316ITR419(All); [2009]182TAXMAN63(All)
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. In this Income Tax Reference, we are required to answer the following question:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 1d.I.T.A.T. was justified and correct in law in holding the expenditure on account of commission paid to Government Doctors incurred by the assessee in contravention of the Public Policy, as allowable expenditure.2. The assessee is dealing in Ayurvedic medicines. For the assessment year 1989-1990, he claims that he spent Rs. 2,46,254/- as business expenditure by paying commission to various Doctors at the rate of 25/- who were prescribing his medicines to the patients. The said Doctors/Vaids were both private as well as Government Doctors. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount as business expenditure, but Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal) allowed payment made to private Doctors/Vaids but disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,08,678/- as business expenditure claimed to have been paid to Government Doctors. The assessee cla...
Anurag Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2181
Shiv Shanker, J.1. By means of this petition moved under Section 482/407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prays for to issue directions for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2003 from Session Division, Raebareli to any another other Sessions Division of the State of Uttar Pradesh for just and fair trial of the Case with a direction to the Opp. Party No. 3 not to proceed in the aforesaid trial any further and/or any such other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed.2. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Arun Sinha as learned A.G.A. on behalf of opposite parties and I have also perused the material available on records.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that threats were extended by opposite party No. 2 Akhilesh Singh on 22.2.2001; 9.3.2001 and 25.3.2001 to deceased Rakesh Pandey. The first information reports were lodged which ...
Mauli MoinuddIn and ors. Vs. Sardar Maqbool Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1508
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision has been filed under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is directed against order passed by Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi in Waqf Reference No. 04 of 2007 Maqbool Hassan v. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and Ors. Through the impugned order, temporary injunction/stay order has been granted and operation of order of the Waqf Board dated 26.07.2007/23.08.2007 has been stayed till the disposal of the reference. Through the said order, an injunction has also been granted restraining opposite parties No. 4 to 20 (who are applicants in this revision) from interfering in the working of applicant in the reference (respondent No. 1 in this revision) as Mutawalli of Waqf in question bearing Waqf No. 7-Varanasi. They have further been restrained from interfering in possession and management of Waqf property by respondent No. 1 in this revision.3. Through the orders of the Waqf Board, which have be...
Talib Khan Son of Sri Wahid Khan Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1317
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Haider Husain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer refusing to grant an interim injunction and the order dated 5.11.2007, passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision as not maintainable.3. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are; that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner. Alongwith the suit an application under Section 229-D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Section 151, Order XXXIX Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the petitioner. An ...
Pushpendra Singh (C.P. 2187) Son of Sri Mahesh Chandra Yadav and Hemvi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1572; [2008(117)FLR1056]
S. Rafat Alam and Vineet Saran, JJ.1. This appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 1.10.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47241 of 2007. We have heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.2. It appears that the petitioner-appellants, being aggrieved by the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra dated 12th September, 2007, dismissing them from service, preferred the aforesaid writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the impugned order is bad, illegal and arbitrary because it has been passed under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (in short the Rules), without recording any reason to dispense with regular departmental proceeding and, therefore, it cannot sustain. The Hon'ble Single Judge, however, having heard the learned Counsel for the ...
Mahesh Kumar Bajpai Vs. Kanpur Development Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1184
ORDERV.M. Sahai and Ravindra Nath Misra, JJ.1. In the year 1978, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (in brief the authority) floated a scheme known as Barrah Grih Nirman Yojna-III, for construction of 111 houses for persons of middle income group on 'no profit no loss basis'. A brochure was also Issued laying down terms and conditions for the allotment of the said houses. The authority constructed as many as 111-M.I.G. houses under the said scheme. It invited applications for allotment of these houses as per terms and conditions contained in the brochure, fixing the estimated cost of each house as Rs. 48,000. The petitioner and several other persons who were willing to have their own houses applied for allotment of the houses in the aforesaid scheme. They also deposited Rs. 500 as earnest money on 29.9.1978. After about seven years, on 24.12.1994, the respondents issued letters to the petitioners demanding the enhanced final cost of the houses viz., Rs. 2,08,000 as against the estima...
Shri MainuddIn S/O Shri Lal Khan Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Roa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR81]
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. The main question in controversy involved in this case is that whether the issue concluded at higher forum can be re-agitated in remand proceeding or only that issue can be considered which has been remanded by higher forum2. The relevant facts having material bearing with the question in controversy involved in the case are that after holding disciplinary inquiry on the charges of misconduct levelled against 28 employees including the petitioner in respect of same incident on similar misconducts various penalties have been inflicted upon them, some persons were inflicted minor penalties and some were inflicted major penalties including the stoppage of 3,4 or 5 increments but a very harsh penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority on 22.5.1996 the petitioner has unsuccessfully preferred departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority and thereafter has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »