Allahabad Court August 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.
Smt. Rajni Sharma and ors. Vs. Fateh Chand Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC381
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7.12.2004 and 29.1.2005, passed by Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act) Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 222 of 2002, Fateh Chand Sharma and Anr. v. Smt. Rajni Sharma and Ors. under Section 7/25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.2. The brief facts as enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of stay application by the revisionists are as follows:3. Smt. Rajnish Sharma, revisionist No. 1 got married to one Arvind Kumar Sharma on 4.12.1998 and out of the said wedlock a male child namely Anshuman was born. Arvind Kumar Sharma husband of Smt. Rajni Sharma expired on 23.7.2002. After the death of her husband, it is alleged that opposite parties (father and mother-in-law of Rajni Sharma) made her life so miserable that she had to seek shelter in her parents' house at Lucknow. It is further alleged that respondents grabbed her stridhan and all...
Ghanshyam Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC224
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. Sometimes Court gets an impression that every thing is permissible in the consolidation proceedings. Petitioner has come with a fantastic case that in the year 1979 some order was passed in his favour and thereafter he went to sleep for about 28 years. In the year 2007, petitioner filed some application under Rule 109A of the Rules framed under U.P.C.H. Act for implementation of the order of 1979 and for its mutation. If in fact some order had been passed in favour of petitioner in the year 1979, then either it would have been implemented promptly in normal course or petitioner should have taken steps for implementation/mutation of the said order immediately. It is quite clear that petitioner has forged some certified copy of a non-existent order after weeding out of original records. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-VI to the writ petition, which is a question-answer dated 27.12.2007 showing pendency of the appl...
Jai Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC429
Shishir Kumar, J.1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today be kept on record.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.3. As counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of parties, the matter is being disposed of finally.4. Petitioner who is a fair price shop holder, a show-cause notice was given to petitioner for levelling certain charges against him on the basis of complaint by card holder. On the basis of said complaint, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is Enquiry Officer has directed petitioner to submit relevant documents within a period of three days. After receipt of reply by petitioner, an order has been passed by competent authority on 24.3.2008 regarding a finding that charges levelled against petitioner has been proved and petitioner is not distributing essential food-grains as well as kerosene oil to various persons. The licensing authority while considering the case has discussed in detail the contentions and ...
Hisabi Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC309
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sri A.K. Singh, holding brief for Satish Mandhyan for respondent No. 5.2. Learned Counsel for the parties requested and agreed that this matter may be heard and decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. Hence, I proceed accordingly.3. Counter-affidavits on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 5 have been filed.4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was a Safai Karmchari and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31st January, 1998, he was relieved from service but his retiral benefits have not been paid till date.5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, the defence taken is that the pension and other retiral benefits could not be paid due to financial crisis and they are making all efforts for payment thereof as soon necessary funds are arranged.6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the defence t...
Niyamat Jahan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4208
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders of cancellation of license of fair price shop with the allegation that action is politically motivated and violative of principles of natural justice..Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as under:2. The petitioner possessed a license to run a fair price shop in village Afjalpur District Moradabad. By an order dated 24.10.2007, the license of fair price shop of the petitioner, was suspended and later on, cancelled on 13.9.2007. An appeal was preferred and the learned Commissioner, Moradabad had stayed the order dated 25.10.2007 as well as the order dated 13.9.2007 and later on, allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27.12.2007. The appellate authority while allowing the revision contained in Annexure No. 1 observed that the order of cancellation of license was passed without considering the reply su...
Vagish Chandra Sharma and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC130
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. This petition has been filed at the instance of the life members, who allege that the election conducted by the Committee of Management, respondent No. 5 was wholly illegal, inasmuch as, the said election was conducted after the expiry of four years and one month, as contemplated in the Scheme of Administration of the Society. This Court, by an interim order dated 16.7.2009 had directed the Regional Joint Director of Education to appoint an authorized controller. The learned standing counsel, Sri S.S. Sharma has submitted that an Associate District Inspector of Schools has been appointed as the authorised controller and that he has taken the charge of the institution.2. The Committee of Management, respondent No. 5 was granted two weeks' and no more time to file a counter-affidavit, in spite of which, no counter-affidavit has been filed.3. In Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2004 (1) UPLBEC 995 : 2004 (1) AWC 736, a Division Bench has held that the Commit...
Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC516
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been made to obtain an appropriate direction upon the Registrar General of this High Court to keep 2% of the posts in direct recruitment to U.P.H.J.S. 09 reserved for the candidates of dependent of freedom fighters. The learned Counsel has relied upon U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 1997. He said that by way of amendment in Section 3(1) there shall be reservation at the stage of direct recruitment in public services, i.e., two per cent of vacancies for dependents of freedom fighters and one per cent of vacancies for ex-servicemen.2. However, we have considered the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bthar and Anr. v. Bal Mukund Sah and Ors. : 2000 (IV) SCC 6,40, which speaks as follows:Any scheme of reservation foisted on the High Court without consultation with it directly results in truncating the High Court's power of...
Vinay Kumar Upadhayay Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC517
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 4 was issued notice by registered post pursuant to this Courts order dated 13.10.2008. As per the office report the notice through registered post/A.D. sent on 17.10.2008 and the office report dated 13.7.2009 shows that notice has been received unserved with post office report 'refused'. In the circumstances the service of notice is deemed sufficient. Neither any counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned Counsels for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.2. By means of the present writ pet...
Ganesh Prakash and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC301
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent- High Court, Sri V.K. Singh, Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.2. Petitioners, who are twenty seven in number, applied in pursuance to the advertisement published in the year 2002 for appointment on the post of Personal Assistants in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad both at Allahabad and Lucknow Bench. The pay scale disclosed in the advertisement applicable to the post was Rs. 5,500-9,000. The petitioners have been selected and in fact appointed as Personal Assistants to the Hon'ble Judges on 29th April, 2003. The petitioners are continuously working in the establishment of the High Court since then.3. The petitioners, by means of present petition, seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500, as rev...
Chandrajeet Ram Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC223
S.U. Khan, J.1. The Court is daily coming across such matters where people come out with certified copies of orders alleged to have been passed 25 to 40 years before by consolidation courts and start asserting that the order must be mutated. In most of the cases such certified copies are forged. In normal course of things if an order is passed by consolidation court in favour of a person then either it is implemented forthwith in normal course or he will immediately take steps for getting that mutated in the revenue records. A wait of more than 12 years always raises a grave doubt regarding the genuineness of the order sought to be enforced. In most of such cases certified copies of nonexistent orders are manufactured after the loss/weeding out of original records.2. In the instant case, the fantastic argument of the petitioner is that on 21.7.1973 some order was passed by the consolidation court in his favour, however, due to negligence) of consolidation authorities the said order of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »