Allahabad Court March 2009 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.
Shyam Sundar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2209
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties the case is heard afresh for disposal. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.2. It is not in dispute that against the order of demolition dated 13.10.2,006 and demolition seizure dated 28.11.2006 prepared by the Vice Chairman of Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Development Authority') under Section 27(1) of U. P. Urban Planing and Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973) the petitioner has instituted suit for permanent injunction and also moved application therein for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction application has been rejected by the trial court after hearing the parties on merit and appeal preferred against which by the petitioner has also been dismissed, hence this petition.3. While raising preliminary objection against the maintainability of ...
Naveen Meena JaIn (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR327(All)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated February 27, 2009, under this writ petition by saying that the notice under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), has been issued beyond the maximum period of six years fixed under Section 149(b) of the Act, therefore, the notice is ex facie bad in law. According to him, the notice has been issued for the assessment year 2002-03.2. Upon calculation of the period, we find that by March 31, 2009, the six year period cannot be said to be elapsed.3. Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in : [2007] 294 ITR 101 (Bom) : [2008] 168 Taxman 281 (Bom) in support of the contention of the petitioner. Without going into the calculation of the years under that judgment we can safely say that the case hereunder is factually distinguishable with the referred case. In that case, apparently the ten year period had already expired ...
N.K.C. Projects Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Utility Energytech and Engineer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1880
S.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. The short point involved in this first appeal from order is whether in view of the arbitration Clause 26.4 contained in the agreement providing Mumbai to be the place of arbitration and that arbitration shall be subject to jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai only, the jurisdiction of the Courts at Jhansi to entertain an application for interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short 'Act') stand excluded.2. The appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Jhansi seeking interim protection that the respondents be restrained from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the appellant as securities for the purposes of civil contract awarded to be carried out at Jhansi. The said application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 31 of 2009, after notice to the other side, was disposed of by the order impugned with the direction that the Court at Jhansi has no ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3497
ORDERArvind K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.2. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 23-5-2008, 16-4-2008 and 22-1-2008 and allow the present criminal revision.3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted revisionist being husband of the victim was charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahroni, District Lalitpur. Revisionist moved an application to declare him juvenile and by order dated 28-2-2007 on the basis of medical report he was found 17 years of his age. There were two certificates, in one of the certificate date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20-4-1988 while in another certificate filed on behalf of revisionist date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20-4-1990. Since there were two date of births mentioned in school record, hence revisionist was medically examined. Therefore, he was declared Juvenile by order da...
Jai Bahadur Yadav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2251
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners appointed as 'Accredited Engineers', under Clause 5.5 of the Operational Guidelines framed by the Central Government in the year 2006, as non-governmental and non-departmental Engineers empanneled on contract, after their selections by the selection committees constituted in accordance with the Government Order dated 17.7.2006, for preparation and supervision of the projects in the socio-economic schemes framed under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, have prayed for quashing the Government Order dated 23.10.2008 to the extent that it amends Clause 5.4 of the National Rozgar Guarantee Yojana published on 8.2.2007 and the advertisement dated 19.12.2008/20.12.2008 by which the State Government has provided for obtaining the services of the Technical Assistants at the Village Panchayat level and Technical Assistants at the Block Development level, through service providers. The advertisement published by the Stat...
Smt. Mamta Singh and anr. Vs. Sri Kamal Kant Gautam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2713
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been heard on the informal papers on exchange of affidavits, as agreed upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The controversy arose in this appeal out of an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra on 16th April, 2008 in Case No. 25 of 2007, Sri Kamal Kant Gautam v. Smt. Mamta and Anr. under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with regard to guardianship of minor daughter of the appellant/opposite party No. 1 (the girl) and the respondent/applicant (the boy). As per the order impugned, the respondent/applicant is entitled to get the custody of the minor child within a month from the date of the impugned order passed by such Family Court.3. The brief facts of the case, as was set up by the respective parties before the court below, are that the respondent/applicant filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the court below saying that he is working in Mumbai (Maharashtra)...
Khoob Chand and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4778
ORDERRavindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2.2. This application has been filed by the applicants Khoobchand, Ram Pal, Mahesh, Manak Chand and Sardar Singh with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 120/9 of 2003 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Koshi Kalan, District Mathura arising out of charge-sheet submitted in case crime No. 624 of 2002 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura.3. The fact in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Shiv Ram at P.S. Kosi Kalan on 31-10-2002 at 12.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17-8-1994 alleging therein that by impersonation of Bhoodhar a forged Will has been prepared in favour of co-accused Khoob Chand, the forged will is having the photo and signature of the applicant Sardar Singh. The applicants Mahesh and Manak ...
Smt. Ram Keshi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1847
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant teacher in a primary school run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Initially petitioner was appointed in October, 1961 in the School which at that time was being run by a local body. After passing of Basic Education Act, 1972, management of such schools was taken over by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Petitioner further claims in para 6 that throughout her carrier she remained untrained teacher and was paid consolidated pay which was revised from time to time. Petitioner retired on 10.9.1989. On 28.4.1990, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Deoria gave a notice to her to handover the charge and submit no dues certificate so that there may not be any difficulty in providing pension and life insurance amount. Getting benefit of session petitioner who attained the age of 60 years (the age of superannuation) on 10.9.1989, actually retired on 30.6.1990. Thereafter petitioner claimed pension...
Ajai Kumar Dubey Vs. Farrukhabad District Cooperative Bank Limited and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2184
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This intra court appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 11.11.2008 whereby the Hon'ble single Judge has dismissed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26630 of 1990 of the petitioner-appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Dubey (hereinafter referred to as the appellant).2. Shri Shesh Kumar, advocate assisted by Km. Beena Mishra, advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the Hon'ble single Judge has declined to consider the claim of the appellant with respect to regularization on the ground that no amendment in the regulation has been shown to the effect that cut off date prescribed earlier as 1.5.1983 was extended to 1.10.1986 though such amendment was made and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be considered for regularization under this amended regulation. He further contended that the Hon'ble single Judge has erred in observing that on 15.12.1987 there were no rules permitting regularization of the employees appointed in the year 1985 as h...
Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC2109
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.2. Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supply), U.P., Lucknow.3. Facts relevant for deciding the present writ petition, as borne out from the record are as follows:4. A tender notice was published by the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur Region, Kanpur on 11th September, 2004, inviting prospective godown owners to offer their bids for the godown being taken on rent by the office of Food Controller. The petitioner, at the relevant time, did not own a godown and admittedly, did not make any bid in response to the said tender notice. The details of the terms and conditions of the tender notice have not been brought on record.5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out as to wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »