Allahabad Court May 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.
Jagmal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2461
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri K.B. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. With the consent of parties the writ petition was finally heard on 2.4.2009.2. The petitioner was appointed as Sahkari Co-operative Kurk Amin on 28.7.1975 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-320 for realization of outstanding dues of co-operative societies. On 28.2.1984 the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. Muzaffarnagar appointed him on the post of Sahkari Kurk Amin at Tehsil level in the office of Additional District Co-operative Officer, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550. Subsequently by an order dated 29.11.1990 issued by the Additional Registrar (Banking) Cooperative Societies, U. P. Lucknow, the Deputy Registrar, Meerut was directed to appoint the petitioner as Junior Clerk from the post of Kosthak Lipik/Sahkari Kurk Amin and accordingly the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. Meerut Region, Meeru...
Udnapur Co-operative Handloom Weavers Society Vs. Special Additional D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All134
ORDERSanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri P. K. Misra holding brief of Sri H.S.Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. With the consent of both the parties this writ petition is being heard and finally decided today itself.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Sitapur in SCC Suit No. 4 of 1993 as also against the Revisional Order dated 22-8-1998 passed by the Special Additional District Judge, Sitapur in SCC Revision No. 7 of 1998.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for the reason that the Court could not proceed under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC in the facts and circumstances and ought to have granted adjournment in view of the provisions of Order XVII, Rules 1 and 3 CPC to enable the petitioner to file his written statement. The submission is that the decree of eviction and arrears of ...
Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2602
ORDERA.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh and Sri B.K. Solanki learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jai Singh Chandel for the contesting respondent No. 2.2. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed the learned standing counsel and the learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha have not proposed to file any counter-affidavit. The parties are agreed that the matter be disposed of at this stage finally without calling for any further affidavits from either of the parties. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally under the rules of the Court.3. Sri S. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allotments which had been made at the stage of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect of Plot No. 87/1, the petitioner was not aggrieved. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends, that in the event there was no grievance on behalf of the petitioner, then there was no occasion for him to have filed any revision against the order of the Settlement Off...
Sukhveer Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2611
A.P. Sahi, J.1. This petition has been preferred questioning of the order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad whereby he has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has restored the order of the Consolidation Officer under which the petitioner was found to be entitled to retain only 1/45 share of the holding in dispute.2. I have heard Shri Subhas Chandra Yadav holding brief of Malti Sharma and Sri A.K. Sachan, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.3. After the matter was heard learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the order that is proposed to be passed there is no necessity to file any counter-affidavit and the aforesaid stand has also been taken by the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of this the matter is being disposed of finally under the rules of the Court.4. The contention advanced is that Khacheru the tenure holder died. He had ...
Brahm Dev Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2606
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents and Sri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing for U.P.S.R.T.C.2. The petitioner claims himself to be permanent driver in U.P.S.R.T.C. who has put his unblemished service of 22 years. The petitioner vide his application dated 4.3.2000 informed the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. that he is having some impaired vision in his eye and requested for medical examination. On the basis of the information of the doctors petitioners further requested that he may be given some suitable job other than driver of the vehicle which is permissible under the rules of the Corporation. The Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. issued a memo dated 15.3.2000 addressed to the fourth respondent, i.e., Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad that medical examination of the petitioner for determining his suitability for continuing him with his driving duties or to assign s...
Subba Rajbhar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2638
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Manish, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents,2. All the four petitioners, namely Subba Rajbhar, Constable Civil Police 1936 ; Pradeep Kumar, Constable Civil Police 273 ; Devendra Rai, Constable Civil Police 341 and Ajai Nigam Constable Civil Police 17, A. P., in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16632 of 2008, were serving as Constable in Civil Police and were posted at Police Station Chaubepur, district Varanasi. They have challenged the order dated 24.3.2008, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, suspending them under Rule 17(1) (a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short the Rules of 1991). In Writ Petition No. 20893 of 2008 they have challenged the orders dated 15.4.2008 by which they were transferred by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) Police Headquarters, U.P., communicated by the Senior Superintendent of Polic...
Jainendra Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2855
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Shri K.N. Rai for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia dated 6.3.2007 ; Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Range, Azamgarh dated 24.8.2007 and Inspector General of Police dated 4.7.2008. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia removing the petitioner from service as Constable No. 638, Civil Police and posted in the year 2004 at P. S. Sukhpura, district Ballia on the ground of his continuous absence from duties w.e.f. 30.8.2004, after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short Rules of 1991). The punishment of removal from service without any pay from the date of unauthorised absence was awarded under Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(1)(a)(2) of the ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mamta Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2572
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is made for the limited purpose and it was heard at the stage of admission in the presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company of the Dumper, i.e., I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The grievance of such insurance company before this Court in an earlier appeal, which has been disposed on 7.5.2008 only on technical ground that the insurance company of the other vehicle, i.e., Maruti Van can be treated to be third party, when the deceased died sitting in the Maruti Van, therefore, the aforesaid insurance company was made party with the composite liability but not on the basis of contributory negligence. As a result, whereof we disposed of the appeal at the stage of admission and directed such insurance company of the Dumper to make a rectification application in the Tribunal upon notice to the insurance company of the Maruti Van, i.e., Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the appellant herein, but we fin...
Ram Autar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3127
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is the real brother of the petitioner, who has also set up his claim of succession under the disputed Will.2. The facts shorn of details are that the holding admittedly belonged to Shri Sukhlal. After his death three of his sons namely Basu Deo, Ram Deo and Ram Avtar stood recorded' according to the irrespective shares. The widow of Sukhlal, Smt. Chameli Devi was alive at that time. Ram Deo, the second son of Sukhlal, predeceased his mother Chameli Devi. It is also not disputed that Smt. Urvashi, the respondent No. 3 is the widow of Ram Deo. Upon the death of Sukhlal the property was succeeded to l/3rd each by all the three sons. However, Ram Deo died issueless and his holding was inherited by the mother of Ram Deo and his widow in equal shares. Smt. Chameli Devi mother of Ram Deo died on 2nd March, 1993. Th...
Swati Gramodyog Seva Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)26VST642(All)
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated March 29, 2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, respondent No. 2, filed as annexure No. 7 to the writ petition as also the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Sector 11, Kanpur against the petitioner for the assessment year 1997-98 (U.P.) vide notice dated March 29, 2004, filed as annexure No. 8 to the writ petition and for other consequential reliefs.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:According to the petitioner it is a registered society certified as Khadi and Village Industry by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board under the provisions of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960. A certificate has been issued to the petitioner on January 10, 1995 by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »