Allahabad Court March 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.
Sanjai Kumar Son of Yogeshwar Prasad, Vs. State of U.P. Through Secret ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2075
H.L. Gokhale, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, in support of this appeal. Mr. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel, appears for the respondents.2. The appellants are students, who claim to have done one year's course in Diploma in Physical Education from an institution in district Balia. What is relevant to note, is that this institution applied for recognition of its course to NCTE on 22.11.1997, but that recognition application has been rejected on 8.10.1999. The appellants claim to have done that course during the year 1998-99. Reliance is placed on the proviso to Section 14 of the NCTE Act, which permits any such institution to continue such course for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition, or till the disposal of the application. Mr. Khare, submits that on the strength of it, the diploma obtained for that course should be treated as valid diploma.3. In our view, such an interpretation cannot be given. The mom...
Smt. Sharda Saharan Vs. Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1619
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. The petitioner is aggrieved from her dispossession by respondent No. 4 from House No. C-39, Sector 15, N.O.I.D.A., Gautambudh Nagar and by way of this petition, she has sought relief in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to restore possession of her house by evicting respondent No. 4 and his musclemen. She has also sought relief for investigation of the case by police and submit charge-sheet in light of her application Annexure-8 to the writ petition.2. We have heard Sri M. K. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. K. Singh, Sri L.M. Singh and learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. It appears from the record that the petitioner is owner of disputed house. The respondent No. 4 wanted to interfere in her possession, therefore, she filed O. S. No. 842 of 1986 before Civil Judge, Ghaziabad which was decreed on 27.4.1991 and Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1991 preferred by respondent No. 4 against the judgment and decree o...
Santhosh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Co-op. Institutional Service Board thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR628]; (2008)IIILLJ36All
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner is a Junior Branch Manager in District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jhansi (the Bank). He was posted in Jhansi Branch and was overall in-charge of the same. A charge-sheet dated February 27, 2001 levelling 7 charges was served upon him. The petitioner asked for certain documents to be supplied to him by his letter dated July 14, 2001 and July 13, 2001. According to the petitioner, the documents mentioned therein were not given to him and as explanation was repeatedly asked he submitted his reply on August 21, 2001 from memory. The petitioner was supplied some documents on August 29, 2001 and thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on August 30, 2001. The petitioner was given show cause notice on September 4, 2001. The petitioner submitted his reply and again asked for the documents some more documents were given but he was dismissed on November 10, 2001. The petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Registrar und...
P.B. Society Jewellers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(All)82
1. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Shambhu Chopra, appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's application under Section 245C which was moved on 26th Feb., 2002 on or before 31st March, 2008.2. If despite its best efforts, the Settlement Commission is unable to decide that application for any valid reason, it would not entitle the petitioner to move an application in contempt, but the petitioner's right to raise other challenge^ which have been made in this writ petition will revive to the petitioner.3. The writ petition is disposed of as above.4. A copy of this order will be presented before the Settlement Commission by Monday i.e. 17th March, 2008.5. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within 24 hours....
Deepak Kumar Pandey S/O Sri Shaym Sunder Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2071; 2008CriLJ2968
Janardan Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. The petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs. 5,85,000/- and soft loan of Rs. 2,26,000/- from the U.P. Financial Corporation. The petitioner defaulted in the payment of the loan and the U.P. Financial Corporation proceeding under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act took possession of the unit on 2.5.01. It appears that in the year 2004 an FDR which was pledged as collateral security with the U.P. Financial Corporation was got encashed by it for a sum of Rs. 2,98,000/-. The U.P. Financial Corporation has issued a recovery certificate under the provisions of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. for recovering the balance dues by way of arrears of land revenue. In consequence a citation dated 7.12.07 was issued by the Tehsildar in which a sum of Rs. 2,11,640-82/- has been demanded from the petitioner. This citation dated 7.12.07 has been challenged by the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned Sr. Counsel assist...
Nizam UddIn and ors. Vs. Nagar Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1496
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 2.8.2006, passed by the District Judge, Allahabad allowing the misc. appeal filed by the defendant-respondent against the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction.2. Heard Sri Murlidhar, senior advocate assisted by Sri Lihazur R. Khan appearing for the petitioners, Sri Maya Shankar for respondent No. 1 and Sri A.K. Mishra and Sri B.B. Paul for respondent No. 2.3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under:An area of 277.42 acres of land which includes the suit property falling In Mauza Jahangirabad Uparhar Ganjia, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana district Allahabad was acquired by the State Government in the year 1915 for Municipal Board, Allahabad (Now Nagar Nigam, Allahabad) for public purposes namely Sewage plant and drainage. Out of the total acquired land an area 45 hectares was decided to...
Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1885
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mathur, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.2. In a proceeding under Section 47A of the Stamp Act initiated on a report of the Asstt. Commissioner, Stamps dated 2.2.2004, the Asstt. Commissioner, Stamps by his ex parte order dated 30.5.2007 directed recovery of deficiency of Rs. 1,73,200 and penalty of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 1.5% per month, with the findings that the summon were duly served. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 30.5.2007. The application was dismissed on 4.10.2007 on the ground that there is presumption of service of notice by registered post. The petitioner filed a Stamp Appeal No. 13 of 2007 on 24.10.2007 challenging both the orders. The Commissioner, Meerut Division has dismissed the appeals on 16.1.2008 on the objections raised by the District Government Counsel (Revenue) that separate appeals are required to be filed against t...
Suryakant Dubey and ors. Vs. State of U.P and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2556
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. List is revised. None is present for the revisionists. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of this revision, the prospective accused have challenged the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) IInd, Jaunpur in criminal misc. case No. 9 of 2006 (Vindhyavasini v. Manish and Ors.), whereby allowing the application moved by opposite party No. 2 Vindhyavasini under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., S.O. P.S. Sureri has been directed to register the case and investigate the same. 4. At the outset, it was contended by learned A.G.A. that revision against impugned order is not legally maintainable, as the the order of registration of F.I.R. cannot be challenged in revision at the instance of prospective accused and if they are aggrieved by the F.I.R., then they can invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having given my thoughtful considerat...
Kameshwar, Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Distric ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2005
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26th December, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 5/390/468/537/81, Revision No. 6/642/791 of 2005 and the order dated 11th February, 1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer.2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioners were allotted Chak No. 571 in chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to the petitioners father, Madan Gopal. An objection was filed by petitioners' father under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 objecting allotment of Chak on Plot No. 1163 etc. The Consolidation Offi...
Smt. Kiran Devi Wife of Sri Mahabir Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidati ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1503
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.These two writ petitions having been filed against the same orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners by these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the order dated 25th November, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10th September, 2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The facts of Writ Petition No. 253 of 2005 are being noted for deciding both the writ petitions.3. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; during consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted Chak No. 30, respondent No. 3 was allotted chak No. 246, respondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 187 and respondent No. 5 was allotted Chak No. 186. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »