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.
Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4125
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri S. C. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. This writ petition has been filed by Kamla Devi, who was elected as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Chakmeer Fajal Ali, Tehsil Karchhana, district Allahabad against the order of the Election Tribunal/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Allahabad dated 15.10.2008 passed in Election Petition No. 3 of 2005-08.3. The facts giving rise to the V present writ petition are as follows:Elections for the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat referred to above took place in the year 2005. The writ petitioner was declared elected on the strength of the highest number of valid vote polled in her favour. The contesting respondent namely Anusuiya filed an election petition under Section 12C of the Panchayat Raj Act against the said election of the petitioner Kamla Devi, which was registered as Election Petition No. 3...
Chhavi Nath and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC187
A.P. Sahi, J.1. This petition has been preferred by Chhavi Nath, Laldhar and Jawahir all real brothers and sons of late Raja Ram and petitioner No. 4 Smt. Piyari Devi, widow of Jagdhar, who was also the real brother of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.2. Th challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) primarily on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely over looked the factum of the order having been passed on 17.4.1996 under an invalid compromise and further that the Consolidation Officer had proceeded to pass the order in a hurried manner when he was due to retire on 31.7.1996. It has been further urged that the said order was ante-dated and the manipulation was set right by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal vide order dated 26.3.1997. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, without considering the aforesaid facts in correct perspective, has reversed the order on erroneous assumptions...
Jag NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3833
Vijay Kumar Verma, J. 1. 'Whether Revision against summoning order is maintainable,' is the main point that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which summoning order dated 18.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur, in Complaint Case No. 1456 of 2005 (Dinesh Kumar v. Jag Narain and Ors.), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the revisionists Jag Narain, Gayatri Devi, Sangita and Umesh have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant Dinesh Kumar (O.P. No. 2 herein). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that a complainant was filed on 17.06.2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st , Jaunpur by the complainant Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay impleading revisionists as accused. Annexure (3) is the copy of that complaint. Allegations made in the complainant, in brief, are that on 13....
Lal Chand Prasad and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2604
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 15.1.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur by which the revisions filed by the petitioners have been rejected.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed that they are purchaser of Plot No. 48 situated at village Bardiya from Sri Gokul Prasad. It appears that an agreement has been entered into between Gokul Prasad, Rajendra, Markadey and other family members in respect of the various family properties situated at village Mauja Silhata, Saranga, Bisrekhi, Bardiya, Bantra and Koilariya Sahvariya. As per agreement, the land of village Sahvariya has been given to Surendra, etc., exclusively. The land of village Bardiya was given to Rajendra and Gokul Prasad and accordingly, other lands have also been settled. The land ha...
Anita Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2617
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri D.K. Pandey, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.2. No counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.3. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.12.2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh directing the respondents to appoint respondent No. 5 as Aganbari Karyakatri in the village Utargawan, district Azamgarh.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the selection on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri was made in the year 2006 and only one candidate was selected in that selection. The selected candidate resigned from the service and, therefore, the selection is exhausted. Accordingly, vacancy was re-advertised on 30.10.2007 but the respondents instead of making fresh selection have appointed respond...
Bachchu Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3017
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 1) and the judgment and order dated 28.3.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur (respondent No. 2).2. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that the land in question was initially recorded as naveen parti and by resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 18.9.1969, the patta was granted for the School in question. Copy of the said Resolution dated 18.9.1969 of Gaon Sabha has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that after the grant of the aforesaid patta, the name was also recorded in the revenue record by the order of the Sub-Divisional O...
Sunita Kumari Vs. Assistant General Manager S.B.i. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3238
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.1999, passed by the respondent-Bank rejecting the application of the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. A further relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a Class IV post and pay consequential benefits alongwith arrears has also been claimed.3. Undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner, who was a Class IV employee working as a security guard with the respondent-Bank died-in-harness on 8.6.1998 leaving behind his wife and four daughters including the petitioner. An application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground. All other legal heirs are stated to have given their no objection on affidavit for appointment of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 7.5.1999, respondent No. 2, the Branch Manager informed the petitioner that the competent authority has r...
Shiv Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3269
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter/communication of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam Khand, Obra, Sonbhadra dated 23.2.2008 wherein it is stated that the compassionate appointment of petitioner would be considered after the decision in Original Suit No. 631 of 2004 instituted by Sri Mohan Prasad son of Jaipati in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. The aforesaid. letter was communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 58491 of 2007 decided on 28.1.2007, earlier filed by petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Sri Triveni Prasad, who was a permanent Class IV employee in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam, Obra, district Sonebhadra/respondent No, 2, died while in service on 4.10.2003. The petitioner claims to be adopted son and dependent of said Triveni Prasad thus moved an application in the office of responde...
Rakesh Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2467
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These are unusual cases. Neither appointments of the petitioners nor order of cancellation of appointment is in accordance with law. Accordingly, unusual relief has to be granted to the petitioners. In the first writ petition, there are six petitioners. In the second writ petition, there are nine petitioners. In the third writ petition, there is one petitioner. In the fourth writ petition, there are two petitioners. In the fifth writ petition, there is one petitioner. In the sixth writ petition, there are two petitioners. In the seventh writ petition, there are six petitioners.3. Petitioners of W.P. Nos. 2167, 2168 and 5513 (first three writ petitions) were appointed as clerks by District Development Officer (D.D.O.), Maharajganj on 13.1.1992. All the appointments of class III and IV employees made in the office of District Development during last six months were cancelled by D.M. Maharajganj by order dated 16.1.1992 which is onl...
Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2464
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Matron in District Women Hospital, Deoria in 1999 and is working as such since then. She has challenged the order dated 2.3.2009 passed by Director General Medical Evam Health Services, U.P. Lucknow, by which she has been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings on the ground of negligence in duties and bad behaviour with patients. She is alleged to have dropped a newly born baby into bucket during delivery period resulting into death of that baby. The action of disciplinary enquiry has emanated from the complaint made by father of the child.3. Shri G. K. Singh, counsel for petitioner has urged that in the impugned order the petitioner has been shown as staff nurse and therefore the order is bad. According to him, it indicates that the authorities were not aware of the fact that petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Matron and her duty is only to assign dutie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »