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.
Raj Vardhan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. We have heard Shri Bhoopendra Nath Singh and Shri S.K. Singh for the appellants. Shri Jayont Banerji appears for the respondents. 2. Shri Raj Vardhan (Special Appeal No. 721 of 2007) and Shri Lal Singh (Special Appeal No. 722 of 2007), are aggrieved by judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2007, by which the Writ Petition No. 22450 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 22529 of 2002, filed by them were dismissed and Writ Petition No. 6334 of 2003 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India and others was allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondent-bank namely 'Aligarh Gramin Bank', which has been re-named as 'Shreyas Grameen Bank, Aligarh' to pass an order of the promotion of Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal in Writ Petition No. 6334 of 2003 on the post of Officer Scale-I, within four weeks. 3. Learned Single Judge found that the respondent-bank had followed the procedure of selection as per the rules. The guidelines dated 28.2.2001, were not in derogation of the Regional Rural B...
Prof. Banarsi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. We have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents and Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, along with Smt. Sunita Agarwal and Sri Satish Madhyan appear for Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur. Notices were directed to be issued to respondent No.4 - State backward Class Commission and respondent No.5 Dr. Devendra Patel. Office report dated 12.3.2010 indicates that notices were sent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on 2.2.2010; neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover was received back. The service upon these respondents, under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court will be deemed to be sufficient. 2. The petitioner is a Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University). By this writ petition, he has challenged the order of the Executive Council of the University vide resolution dated 19.5.2009; the consequential order dat...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Furqan Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. The delay in filing this special appeal has been sufficiently explained in the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, District Basic Education Officer, Buland Shahar. The delay condonation application is allowed. The special appeal was heard. 2. We have heard Shri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellant. Shri Shailendra appears for the petitioner-respondents. 3. The State of U.P. through Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow and other State respondents-appellants have filed this special appeal, against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 5.11.2009, by which he has held that the diploma in teaching Urdu language awarded by the Aligarh Muslim University, of 2 years duration, recognised by the National Council of Teachers Education, under (The) National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993, is equivalent to the basic teachers certificates in Urdu, from the Government training centres at Lucknow, Agra, Mawana in Distt. Meerut and Sakaldiha in District Cha...
Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The appellant claims that he was selected and appointed under the physically handicapped category as Assistant Clerk in the institution known as Vedic Dharam Inter College, Dumri Niwas, Sahjanwan, District Gorakhpur, which is an institution governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant having battled thrice, ultimately succeeded in getting an order from this Court directing the District Inspector of Schools to examine the claim of the appellant. 4. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter has rejected the claim of the appellant on ground that his claim cannot be accepted, as reservation under the physically handicapped category could not be applied against three available posts in the institution. T...
Anand Kumar Porwal. Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Applicant is being prosecuted in complaint case no. 867 of 2010, under Section 18 (c), 27(b)(II) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in case ,State of U.P. v. Anand Kumar Porwal, pending before C.J.M., Auraiya, entire proceeding of which prosecution is sought to be quashed by the applicant through instant Criminal Misc. Application along with the summoning order dated 20.5.2010. 2. Sri Shukla, harangued two submissions in support of the prayers made here firstly, that while summoning the applicant C.J.M. has not passed an order, which may indicate that he had dispensed with inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore it is to be presumed that he has not done so and therefore prosecution of the applicant is bad in law being unsanctified by the Code albeit, learned counsel conceded to the proposition that since the complaint has been filed by a public servant, recording of complainant's statement, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was not legally imperative and there was no illegality i...
Ram Raheesh and Another. Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR dated 15.10.2010 registered as case crime no. 2853 of 2010, under Sections 2/3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short referred to as the "Gangsters Act") at police station Kotwali City, District Hardoi. Further prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in respect of an incident dated 11.10.2010, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Shiv Ratan Singh, which was registered as case crime no. 2851 of 2010, under Section 171 Cha, 147, 353, 504 IPC and 136 (2) of Representation of People Act at PS Kotwali City, district Hardoi. According to the petitioners, this FIR was registered against unknown persons but the petitioners were falsely implicated by the police, which woul...
Pardeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. Vs. Offi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Pardeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd (PICUP), a secured creditor of Rainbow Steels Limited (in liquidation), wound up by order of the Court dated 09.3.1995, has filed this Special Appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.2.2009, in Misc. Applications (A-50 & A-52), filed by the auction purchasers of the 'plant, machinery and scrap,' awarding half the interest accrued on the amount deposited by it, on the date when the sale was held on 16.10.1995, till 14.7.1999, when the possession of the goods/assets were delivered. Learned Single Judge has found that the principles of Order XXI Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, are attracted and has awarded half of the accrued interest on the amount, in deposit, with the Official Liquidator, to the applicants and adjustment of the rest of the half of the accrued interest towards liabilities to be discharged by the Official Liquidator in accordance w...
Smt.Belan and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are parent-in-laws of the deceased. There is general allegation against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case. No overtact has been assigned to them. 3. Learned A.G.A. contended that the applicants along with co-accused were involved in committing the murder of the deceased. 4. Applicants are parent-in-laws of the deceased. No overtact has been assigned to them. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, distinguishing the case of the applicant to the husband of the deceased, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 6. Let the applicants Smt. Belan and Prabhu Pasi involved in Case Crime No. 374 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P.A...
The CM, Thru' Managemenet, Thru' Manager M.H.M.H.S.S. And Anr Vs. Shoa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.2010, whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1. 2. The father of respondent no.1 was employed with appellant no.1. He died while in service. The widow along with respondent no.1, applied to the State Authorities that they be appointed on compassionate basis. The State Authorities initially appointed respondent no.1 in another College and subsequently, vide order dated 14.9.2004, such appointment was sought to be made in the appellants' College. That order has not been challenged by the appellants. 3. As the aforesaid order of appointment was not being enforced, respondent no.1 filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, which came to be allowed. 4. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel submits that they being a minority institution, such a direction could not have been issued. In our opinion, such issue has already been decided, against the institution, by a judgm...
Khannu Vs. State of U.P. Thur. Principal Secy.,home Deptt. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 06.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 91/1988 (State v. Khannu & Others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application 64-Kha moved by the accused for declaring him to be juvenile. 3. The only question involves in this revision is the legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 91/1988 (State v. Khannu & Others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application moved by the accused for treating him to be juvenile. Therefore, with the consent of learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »