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.
Mahendra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
1. The petitioners are 26 in number and have assailed the resumption order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut (Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) whereby the khasra numbers given in the list have been resumed by the State with a provision to pay compensation.2. According to Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners the Land Management Committee, Chhitra, district Gautam Buddh Nagar passed a resolution dated 31.07.1997 for leasing certain land for agricultural purpose to the petitioners and other persons on the ground that they were poor landless agricultural labourers and belonged to the Scheduled Caste communities. The resolution dated 31.07.1997 was approved by the Deputy Collector, Dadri on 20.08.1997 and the petitioners allege to have been handed over possession in the month of September, 1997. They state that the (lease) pattas of land to the respective petitioners are of less than 3.125 acres.3. It is stated that the ...
Chhabi Raj. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the verdict rendered by learned Sessions Judge Ghazipur dated 17.12.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2004 and S.T. No. 65 of 2004. To be precise, in S.T. No. 64 of 2004, the appellant has been convicted under section 302/307 IPC and sentenced to capital punishment and also 10 years imprisonment respectively attended with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In S.T. No. 65 of 2004, the appellant has been convicted under section 4/25 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of RS. 2000/- with default stipulation. 2. In the grim episode, four persons including two children have fallen prey ostensibly to the vengeance of the assailant that be, while one child was left injured apparently mistaking her to be dead. 3. The informant in the instant case is one Dwarika Ram and the incident is stated to have occurred on 21.9.2003 a little prior to 11 p.m in which four persons were done to death. The incident has taken place in village sonad...
Sonu SharmA. Vs. State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 10.9.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge (E.C. Act) in S.T. No. 1385 of 2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 302,376, 307, 506 I.P.C. and section 25 of Arms Act and awarded sentences: to be hanged till death and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, one year R.I. and again one year R.I. respectively. 2. The substratum of the prosecution case is that on 18.10.2006 at about 12 noon, Rajni daughter of informant Vinod Kumar, aged about 11 years who was studying in Class V had gone to the field for watching the mustard crop, which the first informant had taken on Batai from Jagdish Master. It is further alleged that adjacent to this field, are the tube well and also the field of Sonu with standing sugar cane crop. At about 1 p.m, when the first informant and Lala happened to be near the field of Sonu, the...
Manvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 27.10.1994 whereby the appeal filed by the State under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1960) against the judgement and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.03.1982 has been allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside. 2. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : 3. Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 were initiated against one Pooram Singh, the recorded tenure holder. Objections were filed to the notice by Pooran Singh on 31.08.1974 and it was stated that he had transferred certain land through four sale deeds, three of the same date i.e. 24.05.1971 and the fourth dated 28.06.1971. These sale transactions according to Pooran Singh were bona fide, therefore, the land covered by the said sale deed was liable to be excluded from his total land holdin...
Manoj Kumar Tripathi Vs. Smt. Kalpana Tripathi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.72 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana v. Manoj under section 125 Cr.P.C.. 2. Fortunately in the instant case most of the facts are admitted. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had married opposite party no.1 and out of this wedlock two sons were born who are opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is also admitted that the revisionist and opposite party no.1 are living separately from each other since long and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living with their mother. As per records opposite party no.1 was married to the revisionist on 6.7.1994 in Kota Rajasthan. The revisionist was posted as Assistant Process Chemist in Darula Organic Company, Meerut. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 had come alongwith him to Meerut and they started living together. Opposite party no.1 was shocked when she came to know that the revisionist was a patient of Sc...
Arun Kumar Sharma and Karu Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. By way of this revision, the revisionist Arun Kumar Sharma alias Karu (the accused) has assailed the revisional court's order dated 07.06.2010 rendered in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2009 (Prem Narain Sharma v State of U.P. & another) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII, Etawah quashed the discharge order dated 18.X.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 381 of 2008 (State v Arun Kumar Sharma alias Karu). 3. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the revisionist on the ground that no case for framing charges against him was made out. The finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was based on appreciation/evaluation of the evidence and the materials collected during the investigation. The learned revisional court on the other hand took a contrary view and found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate igno...
Smt. Vineeta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur whereby the learned Magistrate had declined to the relevant case to proceed as a State case and ordered that the matter pending before it shall proceed as a complaint case.2. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Magistrate by the revisionist. In this application various allegations relating to the demand of dowry and cruelty by the husband and her family members were levelled. The learned Magistrate examined the said application and thereafter he decided to register the said application as a complaint. On 9.3.2005 he passed an order on the said application that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. be registered as a complaint case and thereafter 15.3.2005 was fixed for examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. As a consequence, the said case was registered as crimina...
Shripati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. We have heard Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Madhur Prakash appears for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. Shri Shripati Tripathi, the petitioner-appellant died during the pendency of the writ petition. He has been substituted with his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 16.3.2010 on an application. The substitution has been carried out in the array of parties on 18.3.2010. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2006 in Writ Petition No.31355 of 2004 by which the writ petition claiming interest on the arrears of salary from 6.1.1978 to 31.12.1992, and other retrial benefits was dismissed. 4. Learned Single Judge observed, that the petitioner serving as Cashier in Nagar Palika, Basti, was placed under suspension on 6.1.1978, on the charges of embezzlement of a part of the salary of the employees, to be deposited in recurring deposit scheme. The...
Brijendra Gupta Alias Pappu and Others Applicants Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
1. Heard Sri S.D.Kautilya, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant Brijendra Gupta alias Pappu, Rahul and Rajiv with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 2766 of 2009 arising out of case crime no. 569 of 2009 under sections 323, 342, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (IX) SC/S.T.Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIIth Meerut. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case, the allegation has been made against the applicants that the first informant went to the house of the applicant Brijendra Gupta alias Pappu at his Green Farm House, near Abulen to realize his labour charges, he was beaten and he was asked to leave the place, about two months prior to the commission of the alleged offence, he again went to the Farm House on 5.9.2009 along with his friend Sanjay Gautam, he was ca...
Hari Chaitnaya Brahmananda Shishya of Swami Brahmananda Ji M Vs. Civil ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2010
1. Matter is taken in revised cause list. 2. Sri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the respondents is not present . 3. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The facts, in brief, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that on 15.9.1930 Sri 1008 Swami Param Hans Ji Maharaj established the Param Hans Ashram and also established a Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya in the prinset of the Ashram known as Shrimad Param Hans Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Teekar Mafi, Tehsil Amethi, District Sultanpur. On 11.2.1995 Swami Shantanand Ji Maharaj executed a Will, in favour of the petitioner declaring him to be his successor, after his death, he is managing the Ashram as Peethadheeswar as well as Manager of the institution. 5. He further submits that since the properties of the Ashram are spread over throughout India at various places and for looking after the same, the petitioner used to visit those plac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »