Allahabad Court October 2010 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.
Kali Ram Vs. Mistri Udal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. These are three writ petitions in which common question is involved for being decided and, therefore, Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Advocate and other learned Advocates appearing in other petitions were jointly heard in support of their respective petitions and Sri Baghel, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 2. In all the three writ petitions action of the Commission of not allowing the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Dental Surgeon pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.8.2009 is under challenge. 3. In one of the writ petition a declaration is also sought on the method of short listing of the candidates for the post in question. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which was vehemently pressed is that short listing done by the Commission on the basis of the marks of B.D.S. Course, without having any screening test is illegal and is not justified. 5. Sri Ojha, lear...
Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The appellant herein was one of the writ petitioners. The writ petition being Writ Petition No. 13503 of 1994 was filed praying for payment of salary on the ground that he had been appointed and his appointment was in accordance with law and an interim order was passed in the writ petition. Thereafter the writ petition appears to have been taken up on 16.9.1997 on which date the same was dismissed and the interim order was discharged. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is quoted below:- "The writ petition requires a detailed finding of fact. This petition is not a suitable for this purpose. If the petitioner is so desired he may move before the Civil Court. The writ petition stands dismissed. The stay order is hereby discharged." 3. It is appears that the dismissal of the writ petition was not known to the appellant. He continued to receive...
Srimati Sarita Devi. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. All the matters are connected with each other since common questions are involved therein, as a result whereof we formulate the following points for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present writ petitions: (A) Whether the State Election Commission has any right to debar the Shiksha Mitra and/or Aanganbari workers from contesting the Panchayat elections? (B) Whether the honorarium receivable by Shiksha Mitra and/or Aanganbari workers for rendering their respective services falls within the purview of "office of profit"? 2. Historically, Part IX of the Constitution of India was inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 with effect from 24th April, 1993 regarding the Panchayats. In this part of the Constitution, two Articles, being Articles 243-F and 243-K, are very important for the purpose and are reproduced hereunder: "243-F. Disqualifications for membership.-(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member...
Kartik Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in criminal case no. 2317 of 2008, State v. Pintu and others, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to review the summoning order. 3. The view of the learned Magistrate is perfectly correct and is based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal, 2004 (3) Crimes 350 (SC), therefore, the present revision has no substance. 4. However, Mr. Gaurav Kakkar submitted that the offences under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are non cognizable offences, therefore, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer cannot proceed as a police case and the same is liable to be proceeded with as a complaint case. He placed reliance on Murli and others v. State of U.P. and another,...
Process and Product Development Centre Employees Association, Agra and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The appellants are in appeal against the order dated 30th September, 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the appellants and the remedy for the appellants will be to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 2. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel submits that the issue of vires of a notification cannot be gone into by the CAT, as it is an existing condition of service and consequently, it was open to the Association of Employees to have moved this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 4 (5) of the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1985'), which are known as the Central Admin...
Rais Ahmad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. We have heard Sri D.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus for holding the election dated 14.10.2010 of the Gram Panchayat, Mirzapur Vikas Khand-Vilaspur, Tehsil-Swar, District Rampur as illegal, invalid and thereby setting aside the same. It has also been prayed that the result of the said election be not declared. 3. According to the petitioner, election of the Gram Panchayat in question was declared and the petitioner no.1 filed his nomination paper on 28.6.2010 for contesting to the post of Member, Kshetra Panchayat, whereas the petitioner no.2 is a registered voter and had filed her nomination for the election to the post of Pradhan under the general female category on 27.9.2010. 30.9.2010 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers wherein no mistakes or errors were found and the nomination papers were accepted by the Returning...
Ravi Gaur at Ravindra Kumar Gaur Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This is a criminal revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of children) Act 2000 (in short 'the Juvenile Act') against the judgement and order dated 22.7.2010 passed by Mr. H.K. Dubey, the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 56 of 2010 (Ravi Gaur alias Ravinder Gaur vs. State of U.P.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist's appeal and maintained the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti, on the bail prayer of the revisionist in the case crime no. 57/2008, under section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. 2. Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad Tripathi and Ms. Urmila Tripathi for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. It is not in dispute that the revisionist has already been declared as a juvenile by the Juvenil...
Dr. Abhishek Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. These are three writ petitions in which common question is involved for being decided and, therefore, Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Advocate and other learned Advocates appearing in other petitions were jointly heard in support of their respective petitions and Sri Baghel, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 2. In all the three writ petitions action of the Commission of not allowing the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Dental Surgeon pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.8.2009 is under challenge. 3. In one of the writ petition a declaration is also sought on the method of short listing of the candidates for the post in question. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which was vehemently pressed is that short listing done by the Commission on the basis of the marks of B.D.S. Course, without having any screening test is illegal and is not justified. 5. Sri Ojha, lear...
Ms Chopra Fabricators and Manufaturers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Ms Kot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Appellant is in appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2010, whereby a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the appellant based on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Official Liquidator of M/s. APS Star Industries Ltd and Others [2009 (2) Bankers' Journal 755] was distinguished by holding that the respondents herein could maintain the winding up petition. 3. The appellants were indebted to the State Bank of India who had obtained a certificate in their favour from DRT which was assigned in favour of M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd upon which they have filed winding up petition. 4. The issue of assigning all debts and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court has been resolved by the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited Versus Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. & Ors. decided on 30th September, 2010. 5. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court, the objection as r...
Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. District Judge, Mahoba and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Shri Dharam Pal Singh appears for the petitioner-appellant. Shri Rajiv Gupta represents the respondents. 2. In this intra court special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court rules, 1952 the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.12.2006 dismissing the writ petition against the order of the District Judge accepting the appellant's resignation, is under challenge. 3. The petitioner was working as a confirmed driver in the judgeship at Mahoba. By a letter dated 26.4.2000 he made a complaint to the District Judge (the appointing authority), of various irregularities in appointment and promotions made in the judgeship with which he was aggrieved. He referred to wrongful promotion of Shri Man Singh on 18.10.1997 by the then District Judge, against which he had filed an appeal, and sent a letter to the High court. He referred to a notice given to him by the District Judge at the instance of his gunner Shri Ram Kripal dated 2.4.1999, and for payment of his honor...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »