Allahabad Court September 2008 Judgments
Sri Madhukar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary (Appointments ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC1044
U.K. dhaon, J.1. Heard Sri I.B.Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, leaned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4. The learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Sri R.K.Singh the learned Counsel for Sri Raghvendra Vikram Singh to whom right of hearing was granted2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by which the seniority of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 has been re-fixed in the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) from Batch Year 1976 and 1977 respectively, have approached this Court. The petitioners have alleged that they joined Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) after the recommendation of the U.P. Public Service Commission and qualifying the test for appointment. The petitioners have alleged that Sri Sudhir Kumar, opposite party No. 3 was commissioned in the Army on 19.03.1977 as a Short Service Commission Officer and was released from defence se...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Bl Son of Mangar, Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC115
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue by which second appeal filed by the petitioners Bas been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit under Section 29-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming their share in the property standing in the name of Panchu on the ground that the said property was acquired by Late Sukhlal and was a joint family property and being great grand son of Sukhlal entitled for the share. In support of their claim, they produced Suryabali son of Gulab Singh who claims to be Jamindar of the village. In his statement, he stated that the said land was given on lease to late Sukhlal. Second witness produced by the petitioners was Lalchand.The claim of the respondents was that late Sukhlal had only two sons, namely, Kalu and Adhin. Gudar and Boli were not the sons of late Su...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mangla Devi Wife of Virender Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. Throug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1147]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This matter pertains to appointment of Siksha Mitra for session 2006-07.Sri A.N. Rai learned Counsel for the petitioner states that law has now been settled in Special Appeal No. 305 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008(3) ESC 1749, to the effect that since the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is to spread education. Appointment under the said scheme is only for one year and it is not a scheme for continuous employment, hence no right to continue on such post could be claimed. As a matter of right the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is to be made on year to year basis hence a direction has been issued to start the procedure to appoint Shiksha Mitra in next session.2. This order appears to have been passed as every year the best candidates is available to teach for a year in the scheme.Relevant paragraphs are as under:The facts of this matter show that a good scheme of Shiksha Mitra is derailed because of litigation and the orders passed by the G...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Rajpoot Vs. Smt. Usha Devi Lahauti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC229
V.K. Shukla, J.1. This is tenant's petition questioning the validity of judgment and order dated 20.4.2005 and 11.7.2008 passed by Judge Small Cause Court as affirmed by Additional District Judge, Court No. ]', Bijnor on 2.9.2008.2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner is tenant of shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 500 per month, as mentioned by petitioner. Petitioner has stated that his tenancy is on month to month payment basis. In the said premises in question, petitioner is running jewellery shop for his livelihood. Notice was sent on 21.11.2002 informing and intimating the petitioner that since 1.9.2002 rent at the rate of Rs. 600 has not been paid. It was mentioned therein that landlord did not any further intend to retain the tenant as such, from the date of receipt of notice after 30 days, tenancy would be terminated and after expiry of the period of 30 days possession of the premises in question was asked to be handed to the landlord, and in the event of failure to...
Tag this Judgment!Bano Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC120
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.7.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr by which she has dismissed the revisions filed by the petitioners.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 10.6.2008 after hearing all the parties. Against the said order it appears that no appeal has been filed. However, an application was moved by the petitioner for recalling of the order which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.6.2001. The application for the mutation has also been allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 3.6.2002. Respondent No. 5, Lakshman Singh filed restoration application for the restorations of the order dated 29.6.2001. The said application was rejected on 4.6.2005. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2001 and 4.6.2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 5 Lakshm...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmood Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1397
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.5.2008, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar by which he allowed the revision of respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has executed the sale deed dated 16.4.1982 in respect of gata No. 884, rakba 1-0-0, gata No. 865, rakba No. 2-0-0 and gata No. 2734, rakba 0-16-10 one third portion, on the basis of which their names have been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.4.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed appeal No. 781, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.1990 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to see whether the permission under Section 5C of Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has been obtained or not. In pursuance thereof, Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 19.11.1996 in case No. 7...
Tag this Judgment!Parvez Parwaz Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ614
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether more than one F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents' is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 29.07.2008, passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Case No. 900 of 2007 (Parvez Parwaz v. Yogi Aditya Nath and Ors.) has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as 'the applicant') under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C'.), has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no justification to get the second FIR registered regarding the same incidents.3. The facts emerging from the record, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Parvez Parwaz moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur on 16.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prakash Richariya Son of Late Salig Ram Richariya Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC113
B.K. Narayana, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.9.2006 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3 by which an amount of Rs. 24710/-, which was paid in excess to the salary, which the petitioner was entitled to receive, has been directed to be recovered from him.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the post of Pharmacist on 31.1.06. Since the petitioner's retiral benefits were not being paid, he approached the respondent No. 4 for redressal of his grievances who, by his letter dated 17.3.2006, requested the respondent No. 2 to release 90% of the G.P.F. amount in favour of the petitioner.3. It appears that another letter dated 21.6.2006 was issued by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 seeking parawise re...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Vs. Smt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC349
Amitava Lala, J.1. By agreement of the parties the appeal is heard on contest on informal papers.This appeal is made by the insurance company against an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 07th August, 2006 challenging involvement of the tempo in the accident and validity of driving licence of the driver.The fact remains that the deceased on 19th January 2005 had gone from Police Line to Holigate, Mathura to purchase goods. While he was coming back at about 9.30 P.M. of the fateful day, a tempo bearing No. U.P. 85M-9048 rashly and negligently driven hit him in front of Roti Godam, which caused death.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has submitted that in the F.I.R., there was no mention of tempo No. U.P.-85 M- 9048. Therefore it can not be said that the accident was caused by tempo No. U.P.-85 M-9048. On the other hand, the driver and the owner have admitted that the accident was caused by the tempo bearing No. U.P. 85M-9048.Learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Anshu Chhabara Son of Late Ramjeet Chhabara Vs. Collector and Commissi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC512
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Smt. Rama Goyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Chaubey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 17th July, 2006 passed by the Collector Jhansi, whereby deficiency of stamp duty and penalty has been imposed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29th November, 2007 whereby the revision of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi under Section 56(1) of the Stamp Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the petitioner had purchased 250 square meters of land vide a registered sale-deed dated 3rd March, 2004 which was located in Civil Lines, Jhansi. The stamp duty was paid at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per square meter treating it to be a residential plot. The sale-deed records that Rs. 1,26,000/- was paid towards stamp duty and Rs. 5,000/- w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »