Allahabad Court August 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.
Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4173
ORDERA.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Sri Manish Nigam learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Misra for the respondent No. 7 and the learned standing counsellor the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.2. This Court had earlier Issued notices to the other respondents for which steps have been taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but no Counsel has put in appearance. It is further submitted that the main contesting respondent Kusum Devi is contesting the matter and Sri H.P. Misra has advanced his submissions.It was pointed out that the order impugned would be unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Adhar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1985 ALJ 615, on this issue. Learned Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law. The order impugned dated 23.4.2008 does not proceed to support the conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence which was allegedly led by the parties.This fact has also been noticed by this C...
Amit Chaurasiya S/O Sri Mahendra Prasad Chaurasiya Vs. State of Uttar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ146
Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Amit Chaurasia with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding and directing the respondents to register the FIR of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and perused the record.3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that one Dibyesh Pratap Singh came to the Mobile Repair Shop of the petitioner on 17.7.2008 at about 5 P.M. and abused him over some disputes on the repair of a mobile phone. The petitioner was also beaten by him. In the meantime, Dibyesh's father Devendra Pratap Singh also came there with five or six juniors lawyers and assaulted the petitioner by kicks and fists. He also gave a threat to his life. Whereas the police of Sigra police station registered a case at Crime No. 448 of 2008 under...
Sri Vishwanath Eam S/O Late Shivanandan Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR205]
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Anant Vijai and Sri Q.S. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the respondent - Jal Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State.2. The undisputed facts which lie in a very narrow compass are that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation according to the existing Rules of 58 years on 31.5.2008. The present writ petition was admittedly moved before this Court after the said date on 30.6.2005. An interim order was provided on 5.7.2005, whereby the petitioner was permitted to continue to work and draw salary. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jal Nigam and in para 9 thereof it has been categorically stated that the provision for enhancement of age of retirement was amended and incorporated in the Statute on 30.8.2005. The decision in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Ors., decided on 10.11.2006 by the Apex Court categorically provides as follows:.Therefore, we are not incli...
Ram Hari and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC755
Krishna Murari, J.1. These writ petitions based on identical facts and common question of law have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. Heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State and Sri A. P. Singh for respondent No. 5.3. In spite of time having been allowed on 22.2.2008 to show cause why the plots purchased by the petitioners by various sale deeds may not be included in the choice given by respondent No. 5, the heir of original tenure-holder, to be taken out as surplus land, neither the State respondents nor respondent No. 5 have shown any cause nor filed any counter-affidavit.4. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under:Notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') was issued to Ram Pratap the original tenure-holder (now dead and represented by respondent No. 5) proposing to declare 19.31 acres in terms of irrigated land ...
Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC294
Sanjay Misra, J.1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura on an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. in Original Suit No. 834 of 2005, Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Mathura.2. One Sri Ravi Krishna Agarwal filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being made a party in the suit. He stated that the Nagar Palika Parishad had settled an auction in his favour on 15.12.2005 regarding lease of the roof of the shop in question and possession of the same was given to him on 9.1.2006 on his payment of the entire auctioned amount. He also stated that pursuant to the said auction and possession he has made his construction on the roof of the shop in question and the status quo order dated 19.1.2006 obtained by the plaintiff from the High Court was never served upon him. For the first time he came to know about the status quo ord...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Mercury Lighting Fixtures
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST412(All)
Prakesh Krishna, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The dealer-opposite party was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of electrical goods. It was a 'new unit' within the meaning of Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was granted exemption on the turnover of sale for the period up to March 31, 1990, in pursuance of the Notification No. 7558 dated December 26, 1985. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91, the dealer-opposite party took a stand that the goods which were manufactured up to March 31, 1990 and were in the closing stock of the year stored and sold thereafter were not liable to be taxed in view of the exemption granted to it. The said contention was not accepted by the assessing officer as well as by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal by the order under revision took the view that on the goods manufactured up to March 31, 1990, the dealer-opposite party is entitled for exemption from sales ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›