Allahabad Court May 2008 Judgments
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Through Its Partner, Shri M. Suresh Rao V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4673
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Challenged in this revision is the impugned summoning order dated 16.6.1993, passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak v. Managing Director Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Under Section 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC, P.S. Inchauli, district Meerut. The grounds for challenge is that no offence at all is made out against the revisionist, the proceedings are actuated with malafides and the Magistrate without any application of mind has summoned the revisionist.2. The facts, in brief, as are perceptable from the record of this revision are that Complaint No. 32/9 of 92 was filed by Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak against the Managing Director Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, Vinoba Bhavey Road Mysore, P.S. Mangalore. Karnataka for offences Under Section 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC, P.S. Inchauli. district Meerut on 22.12.2003 in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut with the allegations that the complainant Gokulesh Pathak is a follower of...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4553
ORDERVinod Prasad, J.1. A family consisting of three uterine siblings Narain Singh, Raghubir Singh, Indrapal Singh along with two sons of Narain Singh namely Rajiv Kumar and Yadvendra have filed this Criminal Misc. Application Under Section 482 Cr. P. C, with the prayer that entire proceedings of F.R. Case No. 70/05 (Sudha v. Narain Singh and Ors.) including the summoning order dated 30 7-2007 (Annexure 22) passed in the aforesaid case Under Section 395, 354, 504 and 506 1PC, P.S. Uldan, district Jhansi, pending before the Special Judge (DAA) Jhansi, be quashed. The ancillary prayer is for stay of further proceedings of the aforesaid case.2. The facts generating this Criminal Misc. Application briefly stated are that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Sudha w/o Balram Nayee, is a resident of village Banrauni, P.S. Uldan, district Jhansi. Her co-villagers applicants Narain Singh, Raghubir Singh, Indrapal Singh, Rajiv Kumar and Yadvendra reside in front of her house across the public way. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Hashim Vs. Board of Madarsa Education and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3615
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. The present special appeal has been filed against an order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23990 of 2008, whereby time for filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit in the writ petition has been granted and the case has been directed to be listed after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said order.2. No order appears to have been passed on the stay application filed alongwith the writ petition.3. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that the order dated 13.5.2008 amounts to rejection of the prayer for stay made in the stay application accompanying the writ petition, and the same has resulted in making the writ petition infructuous.4. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the order dated 13.5.2008 amounts to rejection of the prayer for stay made in the stay application accompanying the writ petition, and, therefore, the special appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Sahai Vs. Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3483(All)
U.K. Dhaon and Narayan Shukla, JJ.1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Khare, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 29.5.1981 and the order dated 20.10.1981 passed by the appellate authority by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order has been dismissed has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working in the Zonal Office, Union Bank of India as an officer Grade-II, he was served with an order of suspension dated 29.8.1978. A charge sheet dated 13.02.1979 containing four articles of charges along with memorandum of allegations dated 13.02.1979 was served upon the petitioner. Sri K.K. Dhawan the then Superintendent (Enquiries) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The management submitted a list of 23 witnesses. Out of 23 witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Amod Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC528
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether a unmarried daughter who has attained majority, but unable to maintain herself and a wife, who wilfully disobeys the directions given by the court in the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, can claim maintenance allowance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') are the main questions that fall for consideration in these revisions. 2. Challenge in both these revisions is to the judgement and order dated 24.06.2006 passed by the Family Court Varanasi in Case No. 12 of 2002 Smt. Neelam Srivastava v. Sri Amod Kumar Srivastava, whereby allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2500/- per month to Smt. Neelam Srivastava and Rs. 2000/- per month to both the daughters namely Km. Bhavya and Km. Divya (opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in Crl. Revision No. 4400 of 2006) has been granted from the date of order. Smt. Neelam Srivastava has prayed in Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through the Managing Director Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3288(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short, the Corporation), for the petitioner and Shri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri H.P. Dubey and Shri G.K. Malviya for the private respondents. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. With the consent of the parties the matter was heard and is being finally decided.2. The Corporation is aggrieved by the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow (Appellate Tribunal) in Revision Nos. 88 to 101 of 2005 under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by which the revisions were partly allowed and that while setting aside the order of the State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow dated 9.6.2005 the regular stage carriage permits were renewed for another usual term of five years with effect from then expiry, on usual terms and conditions, for the portion not covered under the scheme dated 29.5.1993, after curtailing the portion overlapp...
Tag this Judgment!North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union Through Its General Secretary, Shr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR544]
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shamim Ahmad for the petitioner. Shri Govind Saran appears for the Railways. Shri B.N, Singh appears for respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner is a trade union of Group 'C' & 'D' employees of the Indian Railways and is registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926. It did not secure the minimum percentage (35%) of single vote to the total votes polled, or the minimum percentage (30%) of the single vote of the total electorate, in terms of para-5 of the norms of recognition of Trade Unions in the 'Modalities For Conducting 'Secret Ballot' For The Purpose Of Granting Recognition To Registered Railways Trade Unions Representing All Categories Of Group 'C and Group 'D' Employees Of The Indian Railways'. The petitioner raised an election dispute, which was held as not tenable by the competent authority of North Eastern Railways on 10.12.2007, giving rise to this writ petition.3. The petitioner has challenged the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Praphull Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Revenue Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3318(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Rai, for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the contesting private respondents as well as learned Standing counsel.2. 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.3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2006, passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue by which order the Board of Revenue decided case Nos. 77 to 91 and 313 and 314 which were withdrawn and transferred to the Board of Revenue from the court of Assistant Record Officer Sub Divisional Officer Ballia. The dispute raised in the writ petition has a checkered history of litigation. The writ petition arises out of record operation which were initiated by issue of notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 issued in...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chinta Devi W/O Sudarshan Singh, Vs. Deputy Director of Consolida ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3325(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.C. Pandey for the petitioners and Sri Namwar Singh appearing for the contesting respondents.Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 9th December, 1998 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding the revisions filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20th February, 1990 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents partly.3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the writ petition are; the dispute between the parties arose in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. The dispute relate to different Khatas of six villages, namely, Dalipur, Ahrak, Pooran Patti, N...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi S/O Late Bhawani Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3227(All)
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Sri S.P. Pandey Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B.D. Pandey Advocate on behalf of the respondents.2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Vice Chancellor of Deendayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur dated 16.01.2008 where under the regularization of the petitioner, as earlier directed with reference to Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (as amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 2004), has been revoked.3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once regularization had been directed by the University after obtaining a report from a Four Member Committee, it is not open to Vice Chancellor to revoke the regularization. Even otherwise it is stated that a part time teacher of an affiliated Degree College, on been appointed in the University on part time basis subsequently, is entitled for computation of the services rendered in the degree college, for the purposes of regul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »