Allahabad Court March 2008 Judgments
Bankey Lal Sharma S/O Todar Mal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Dev Raj S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3779
Amar Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.2. An order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Aligarh in S.T. No. 865 of 2006, summoning the applicant under Sections 307/34, 420, 504, 506 IPC has been challenged by means of this application.3. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that the said summoning order was passed after examination-in-chief of Dev Raj Singh and before his cross-examination was done, it is argued that there is a bar for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. unless the witness is cross-examined. For this proposition learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Rafiq and Anr. 2007(2) JIC 490.4. In my view this contention of the learned Counsel is based on a mis-reading of the aforesaid decision. The said decision only mentions that discretion to summon ...
Tag this Judgment!Jubair Ahmad Kazi Son of Zameel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Smt. Rana ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC605
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. A husband has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the Family Court Judge Bareli by order dated 25.11.2006 has granted maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The husband says that he has divorced wife but has filed a suit for declaration in the Civil Court that the wife has been divorced. The argument is that the wife is not entitled to maintenance allowance because she is divorced.2. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava, Advocate Advocate for the applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.3. The counsel for the applicant has relied on the following cases;(i) A.I.R. (3) 1944, Madras 227 M.M. Abdul Khader v. Azeez Bee.(ii) A.I.R. 1955 Hyderabad, 144 Mohd. Shamsuddin v. Noor Jahan Begum(iii) A.I.R. 1931 Madras, 647 Kathiyumma v. Urathel Marakkar.4. The aforenoted cases are no more good law in view of the pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Singh Constable No. 114 C.P. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR700]
Arun Tandon, J.1. Petitioner who are two in number are employed as Constable in Civil Police of the State of U.P. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra dated 13.3.2008 whereunder in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1991), a decision has been taken to dispense with the departmental enquiry and to dismiss the petitioner as has been noticed.2. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Oer. 2007 (1) ADJ 143, as well as in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Chandrika Prasad 2006 (1) ESC 374, contends that no reason recorded for arriving at a conclusion that it was practically impossible to hold an enquiry in respect of the charge as noticed in the order. In absence of reaso...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Devi Govil Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR693]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This petition has been filed for a mandate to the respondents to pay her. family pension from 1.1.1989.The husband of the petitioner was working as a Clerk in Sri Lakshmi Raj Inter College, Gobhana District Aligarh which is a duly recognised and aided institution and salary was being paid under the U.P. Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 8.6.1974. Earlier there was no provision either under the Salaries Act or under any Government notification making provision for family pension, but the State Government vide order dated 1.1.1989 for the first time introduced the benefit of family pension. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner raised claim before the respondents but to no avail and therefore, the present petition.2. The learned Standing Counsel has firstly resisted the claim on the ground that since the husband of the petitioner died prior to 1.1.1989, she is not entitled to family pensio...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Prasad Patel Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1053]
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.By this petition petitioner has sought relief for quashing the impugned order dated 21.3.2006 passed by respondent No. 4 contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition and a relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2006 contained, in Annexure-15 of the writ petition in pursuance of Government Order dated 28.4.2005 contained in Aruioxure-4 of the writ petition and further to direct the payment mentioned therein, has been sought for.2. The reliefs sought in writ petition rest on the assertions that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Auditor in Co-operative Societies in the year 1973 and was promoted as Senior Auditor in the year 1994 and thereafter he was again promoted as Senior Auditor Grade on 29.9.2001. While working as Senior Auditor he was not paid his salary for December, 2000, Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Brahma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Surya Leasing Ltd. Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC131; 2008CriLJ4082
A.K. Roopanwal, J.1. As all the above applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. arose out of the same set of facts and the common arguments have been advanced in these petitions, hence, these all are being decided by one common order. 2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2, M/s. Surya Leasing Ltd through its Special Power of Attorney Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal against nine persons namely M/s. Garima Construction Co. (P) Ltd through its Managing Director, Shri Kapil Krishan Sabarwati, Shri Mohit Sabarwal, Smt. Prabha Sabarwal, Sri Madan Mohan Gulathi, Sri Prem Gulathi, Sri Dinesh Gulathi, Sri Chitranjan Gulathi and Smt. Brahma Devi, under Section 138/139, N.I. Act and 420, IPC. The complaint case was that the complainant is a leasing company having its Head Office at New Delhi and Branch Office at Aligarh. Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant company and this power of attorney has been signed and executed in f...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Asrey Verma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2008All126
1. Shri B.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that despite the fact that the term of the Committee of Management has come to an end, the Administrator has been appointed under Section 29(5) though elections have not yet been held. Time was granted to the State to obtain instructions, but no instructions have been received.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.J.S. Makkar, learned Standing Counsel say that the writ petition may be disposed of finally.3. Without entering into the merits of the case as to why elections have not been held, we would like to observe that the purpose of Section 29, Sub-clause (5) of the Act is not to take control of the Committee of Management of the Society by appointing Administrator and then to continue with the Administrator without holding elections. The purpose of the aforesaid provision cannot be used as a tool for replacing the elected body of a Committee of Management by Administrator in case elections could not be held for a...
Tag this Judgment!Aaj Prakashan Ltd. Through Its General Manager Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR919]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satish Chaturvedi for the respondent.2. This petition is directed against an order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 33-C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. The respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioner when his services were dispensed with on 1.5.1986 and treating it as an industrial dispute, it was referred under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1987 and an award was rendered therein on 17.6.1992 granting reinstatement and back wages from the date of reference i.e. 9.11.1987. This award was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in writ petition No. 15699 of 1994 and this Court vide its detailed and reasoned judgement dated dated 5.7.2004 dismissed the petition the petitioner thereafter tiled a review, application which was also dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC358
B.A. Zaidi, J.1. A criminal case No. 3198 of 2007 (State v. Smt. Usha Gupta) is pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar.2. The two applicants, who are accused in the case, have come to this Court seeking transfer of their case from that Court to another Court in the District.3. Heard Mr. D.P. Misra, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.4. The ground on which the transfer is sought is that 'Samdhi' of informant- opposite party No. 2 is posted as Peshkar in the said Court where case is pending.5. This is sufficient ground for transfer of this case from the said Court and the case be, therefore, transferred by the District Judge to some other Court.6. It may also be observed that Magistrate in this case issued non-bailable warrants straightaway against the accused, which was unjustified and unwarranted, in the first instance, because no reasons were given by him as to why the summons were not iss...
Tag this Judgment!Pyre Lal S/O Raghunath, Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2076
R.N. Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in respect of plots in dispute to have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act). They have further prayed for the relief from their dispossession over the land. In the alternative they have taken shelter of Section 48 of the Act.2. We have heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.H. Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.3. Admittedly, the plot Nos. 115 and 8 and plot Nos. 98, 163, 12, 14 , 90, 101 and 102 situate in village Jhalwa tehsil sadar district Allahabad belonged to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 respectively. The respondents proposed to acquire the said plots for the construction of residential colony and notification under Section 4 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »