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.
Raghvendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.Through Secy. Home Lucknow an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 20.12.2002(Annexure no. 4) and 04.03.2006(Annexure no.5) passed by the District Magistrate,Gonda and Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda respectively. 3. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is a holder of Gun Licence No. 348 NP Bore Rifle No. AB-01/4262. In respect to the same, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner dated 20.09.2002, thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause-notice and after considering the same, the Licencing Authority vide order dated 20.12.2002(Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) cancelled the petitioner's Arms licence. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, rejected v...
Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The revisionist Santosh Kumar Singh has filed this revision against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, District Ghazipur, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Ranju Singh, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the wife Smt. Ranju Singh moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, District Ghazipur for maintenance alleging that her marriage took place with Santosh Kumar Singh on 18.06.1999 at Village Odihar Kala, P.S. Saidpur, District Ghazipur and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. There was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- cash, two gold bangles and one gold neckless, which demand could not be completed due to insufficiency of finances and for that...
Shesh NaraIn Awasthi and Another Vs. Chairperson Debts Recovery Appell ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Heard Shri R.K. Jain learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ankur Sharma, for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The brief facts of this case as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 filed a Claim application under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'RDB Act') in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad which was numbered as Original Application No. 99 of 2001 for issuing of recovery certificate for its alleged dues of Rs. 24,48,546/- with interest pendentelite and future at the rate of 16.5.% p.a. with quarterly rests against a partnership firm known as M/s. Anandeshwar Industries respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 1 in the claim application) and its partners. The guarantee was executed by the petitioners in consideration of the aforesaid loan of Rs.14 lacs. 3. In the claim application the Bank, inter alia, alleged that M/s. Anandeshwar Industries and its partners...
Ms Hakmi Chand D and Sons Mathura Junction MathurA. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. By means of the present aforesaid four writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 30.1.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 under the proviso to Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the assessment years 3003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and consequential notices dated 2.3.2010 issued under Section 21 of the Act by respondent no. 3. 2. The brief facts of the case, mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm having its registered Head Office at G/4 Nityanand Appartments, Vakilwadi Punit Ashram Road, Manin Nagar, Ahmadabad. The said firm entered into an agreement with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "IRCTC") to carry out the business of catering and sales of food products, tea, coffee, etc. and also sales of cold drink, biscuits, mineral water, etc. at Railway Station Mathura Junction through Stalls. The petitioner also entered into...
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Commissioner,lucknow Division,lucknow and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Heard Sri Vivek Manishi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of present writ petition, the impugned orders dated 21.12.2005 and 14.09.2006 passed by the respondent no.1 i.e. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 28.05.2003 passed by respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Sitapur are under challenge. 3. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was holder of licence No. 798 Double Barrel Gun, granted by the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Sitapur. 4. On 23.01.2003, petitioner received a show-cause-notice issued by the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Sitapur that why the licence should not be cancelled and his licence was also suspended. On 05.02.2003, petitioner submitted reply in response to the show-cause-notice dated 23.01.2003. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.05.2003 petitioner's licence was cancelled. 5. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferr...
Vijay Karan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petitioner claims himself to be the senior most teacher of Kidwai Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Kidwai Nagar Kanpur, and accordingly, also claims that he is entitled to officiate as principal of the institution as the respondent no. 5 Vishwanath Gupta has no authority to hold the said post by virtue of his alleged selection under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the regulations framed thereunder. 2. The Institution is a Higher Secondary School established, recognised and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and selections and appointments of teachers and Head of such an institution is governed by the 1982 Act (supra). 3. The post of Principal in the Institution fell vacant in the year 1983 which was advertised for being filled up by way of selections through the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. The respondent no. 5 Vishwanath Gupta was an applicant for the said post....
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2009 (Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava), whereby the order dated 18th April, 2009 passed by the C.J.M. Varanasi rejecting the protest petition of opposite party no. 2 in case crime no. 651 of 2008, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act has been set aside and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for taking a fresh decision on the final report and the protest petition. 2. Heard Sri S.B. Kochar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey holding brief for Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 3. The facts are that FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionists for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act alleging therein that ...
Nand Kishor Vs. Collector. District Magistrate, Rampur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. We have heard Shri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. Shri Satendra Kumar Pandey appears for Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur. 2. In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notices issued on 3.11.2009 and the recovery proceedings of the rent of the shops owned by Nagar Palika Parishad and allotted to the petitioner, as arrears of land revenue. By an interim order dated 3.11.2009 the recovery proceedings in view of the judgment of this Court in Titu Singh v. District Magistrate/ Collector, Mathura & Ors., 2003 (5) AWC 3479 were stayed. 3. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad prays for some more time to file counter affidavit. Since the petitioners have not disputed the amount, which is due from them and have only challenged the method of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue by issuing recovery certificate/ citation dated 14.9.200...