Allahabad Court April 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.
Smt. Shamli Devi Wife of Sri Maha NaraIn Vs. State of U.P. Through the ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ALT433
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition was nominated to me by Hon'ble the Chief Justice through order dated 02.08.2004. Thereafter on 04.08.2004, I passed the following order on the writ petition:This is a writ petition through which a prayer has been made that respondents must be restrained from letting out or granting Patta for fishery rights over the land which belongs to the petitioner. Earlier also similar Patta was granted regarding part of the land which has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere. It appears that the Patta-holder society has filed some suit against the petitioner which is pending according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and no injunction has been granted therein. Through this writ petition prayer of the petitioner is that respondents i.e. State of U.P., District Magistrate and Tehsildar should be restrained from allotting other land of the petitioner in plot nos.281 and 339 for fishery rights to any one else. Only ponds can be allotted for exercis...
Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Phulesara and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3339
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Adltya Narayan, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Namwar Singh advocate for the defendant-respondents. Counsel for the appellant and contesting respondents have agreed that the appeal may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself since the lower court record is available.2. This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.7.1998, passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1996 confirming the judgment and order dated 23.1.1996 in Original Suit No. 251 of 1983, passed by Vth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi.3. The relief claimed in the suit was for a decree of specific performance of contract. The plaintiffs case was that Timmal, ancestor of the defendant-respondents entered into an agreement for sale on 5.8.1974 for a consideration of Rs. 9,500, Rs. 3,500 was paid as earnest money and remaining amount of Rs. 6,000 was to be paid at the time of execution o...
Murari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2425
ORDERAnjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.2. The petitioner, who is elected as President (Chairman) of the Nagar Panchayat concerned, has challenged the order impugned by means of present writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that name of respondents 5 and 6 has been recommended for nomination as member of Nagar Panchayat concerned by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 9(1)(d) of Municipalities Act, 1916 (in short 'the Act'). It is further contended that since the respondents 5 and 6 are not the elected members, therefore, they cannot be nominated as members by the State Government in exercise of power under the aforesaid Act.4. We have gone through the impugned-order and the provisions of the aforesaid Act and we do not find that there is any such qualification or disqualification that in case a person, who is not an elected member of the ...
Smt. Lakhpati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC328
ORDERAnjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Aggrieved by order dated 12.2.2008, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau, whereby he allotted fair price shop by drawing lottery in favour of respondent No. 6, Smt. Chanchala Devi, the petitioner who is Pradhan of Gaon Sabha concerned, has challenged this order on the ground that recommendation of Gaon Sabha has not been taken and the allotment in favour of respondent No. 6 has been made by drawing lottery in utter disregard of relevant Government order.3. We have considered the matter and do not find any illegality or irregularity. The Government order dated 17.8.2002 vide para 11 provides that where no resolution is passed by Gram Sabha or where there is any dispute with respect to such resolution of Gaon Sabha, it will be open to the District Magistrate to get fair price shop allotted on the recommendation of the committee presided by ...
Dayal Chand JaIn Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2745
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Awasthi for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad-respondent No. 1. Shri Ravi Kant, senior advocate assisted by Shri Saroj Yadav appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. There is no dispute on facts, and thus with the consent of parties, the writ petition was heard and is finally decided at the admission stage.2. The petitioners is the acting President and life member of the 'Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad'-a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short the Act) as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The Samiti is a prestigious cultural institution in the city of Allahabad established for advancement and popularisation of classical Indian Music, both vocal and instrumental. He has filed this writ petition challenging the election programme announced by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allah...
Jeet NaraIn Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR912]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. These two writ petitions arise out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Jeet Narain by the Railway authorities. The first writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1997 passed in Original Application No. 461 of 1989. Under the said judgment the Tribunal has issued following directions:(a) Fresh departmental enquiry be conducted against the Jeet Narain, qua the charge of forged casual labour card being submitted by him.(b) Employee be reinstated pending enquiry.(c) A cost of Rs. 25,000/- be paid by the employer concerned.2. The Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition suspended the payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated 26.2.1998 however it was directed that the other two directions issued by the Tribunal be carried out. The Union of India, therefore after reinstating the petitioner proceeded with the departmental enquiry. After the enqu...
Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR213]
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. Petitioner, a head constable in U.P. Police, has been straight away dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 31.1.2008 on account of an incident in which an accused had escaped from his custody while returning from the Court on the same very day holding that it is not reasonably practicable to conduct an inquiry against him before dismissing him from service.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that not holding of an inquiry before imposing a major punishment is totally contrary to the principles of natural justice and even if such an inquiry is to be dispensed with at least the order should contain reasons for recording such satisfaction as to why it is not practically possible to hold such an inquiry.4. Learned Standing Counsel who was given time on the earlier occasion, to seek instructions, on the basis of instructions accepts that the ord...
Jawahar Lal Son of Shri Ram Chandra Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2016
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri O.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Shri Jawahar Lal, the sitting Pradhan and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17526 of 2008, and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri S.K. Sharma for Shri Surya Prakash Dwivedi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2008. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents.2. A short question that call for decision in this case is whether the meeting of the electors of the Gaon Sabha for considering 'no confidence motion' against the sitting Pradhan under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 33B and Rule 33D of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 can be said to be validly held if it is disturbed by commotion, mayhem, illegal confinement of the Chairman of the meeting resulting into pandemonium affecting the result of the meeting.3. Shri Jawahar Lal was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Ram Nagar, Post Office Mauraniya ...
Sabir Mohammad Yusuf (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Sabir Abdul Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2190
Amitava Lala, J.1. As agreed upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard on informal papers. Now let us consider the merit of the appeal.2. The following reliefs are prayed in the suit before the court below:(a) That through the decree of this Court it's be declared that the name of the defendant so included in the transfer deed dated 5.10.1982 executed by Sarva Shri Gianendra Singh, Yogendra Singh and Satendra Singh sons of Dr. D.P. Singh as benami and the defendant has no right or title of whatsoever nature in plot No. KD-17 Ashiana, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad alongwith all the construction standing thereon the boundaries of which are given at the foot of this plaint and the plaintiff is its sole owner with leasehold rights.(b) That through the decree of this Hon'ble Court, a permanent prohibitory injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant whereby defendant be permanently restrained from transferring, selling any share or a pa...
Gopal Kumar Mathur Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2425A; [2008(118)FLR604]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.2.1998 by which the petitioner has been removed from service, the judgment and order dated 8.2.2000, passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal') by which the claim petition of the petitioner has been rejected and also the order dated 5.9.2000 by which the review application filed against the order dated 5.9.2000 has been rejected by the Tribunal.2. The fact and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, while posted as Executive Engineer at Allahabad, was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.1.1997 containing following three charges:Charge No. 1 : He spent more than allotted funds on the projects sanctioned by the Government in different financial years and, thus, has violated para 375 (b) of Financial Hand Book Vol. 6 and is guilty of dereliction to duties in observing para 108 of the U.P. Budget Manual.Charge No. 2 : He got the wor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »