Allahabad Court November 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.
Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Distt. Basic Education Officer and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. All these writ petitions raising common questions of facts and law, have been heard together. The writ petition No. 58 of 2003 is being treated as leading case and reference to pleading in the said writ petition is sufficient for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions. 2. Brief facts giving rise to writ petition no. 58 of 2003 are; the petitioner passed High School examination and Higher Secondary School examination from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The petitioner also obtained Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra (two years course) from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad in the rural area of Jaunpur. The advertisement provided that the candidates who have obtained B.T.C. Training certificate from District Institute and Training, Jaunpur may ap...
State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secretary And Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Sing ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This appeal has been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Office to register the appeal. 2. This is an appeal by the State authorities-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the order dated 26.5.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has been allowed directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police of the State on 1.6.1981 and was promoted as Inspector in the year 1996-97. On 20.5.2009, while the petitioner was working as Special Intelligence Officer (Vishesh Prakostha), Saharanpur, he made an application for ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-i, Meerut and Another Vs. Ms Pa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the orders dated 15.06.2010 and 09.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was pleased to issue a direction that it is obligatory on the part of the Revenue to return the non-relied documents to the assessee. Further the relied documents or copies thereof must also be furnished to enable the petitioner (respondent herein) to plead its case effectively and defend itself. Consequently, a direction was issued to return the original and non-relied documents and to furnish the copies (hard/photo copies) of the relied upon documents to the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to inspect the original documents and the materials sought to be used against him during the proceedings. The learned Single Judge further directed that the petitioner shall also be allowed an opportunity of cross-examining the persons whose statements have been relied upon and referred to in the show cause notice. The learned Single Judge...
Dr. Avinash Chand Goel Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. Heard Shri Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner retired as Senior Medical Officer (Stores) serving in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar w.e.f. 21.12.2004. A letter was sent to him by Director (Pensions), Indra Bhawan, Lucknow on 31.5.2005, alleging that he was wrongly given the pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986. He was directed by letter dated 14.12.2005, of Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffar Nagar to deposit Rs. 1, 76, 950/- for releasing the terminal benefits. 3. The petitioner deposited Rs. 23,950/- on 26.12.2005, and thereafter in pursuance to the letter of the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar dated 27.12.2005, he deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 1, 53, 000/-, as a condition for releasing his terminal benefits. The pension payment order was issued on 28.2.2006. The petitioner made a protest to the wrong fixation and recovery and prayed for refund of Rs. 1, 76, 590/-, which was...
State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manjiv Shukla and Sri Kapil Dev, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar for the respondents. 3. The State challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2010 by means of which, the learned Single Judge has issued a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellant to issue the appointment orders to the respondents, in pursuance of the selection held by the U.P. Public Service Commission on the post of Drug Inspector within a period of one month. 4. The State instead of complying with the orders aforesaid and issuing appointment orders on the recommendation made by the U.P. Pubic Service Commission, has chosen to challenge the said order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing the present special appeal. 5. The ground of attack to the order is that the U.P. Public Service Commission was not authorized legally to modify the essential qualifi...
Smt. Manju Singh Vs. Tara Chand and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 8.1.97 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in S.T.No. 219 of 1996. 2. The brief facts of this case are that on 7.5.93 at about 7 p.m. in village Ramgarh, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur one Dharam Sen had gone to the residence of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to borrow from them some weights as Dharam Sen had to weigh some grains. Opposite party no.1 Tara Chand refused to oblige Dharam Sen upon which an altercation between the two started at the spot. Thereafter opposite party no.1 pulled out a revolver and opposite party no.2 Vijay Pal took out a knife and on the exhortation of opposite party no.1. opposite party no.2 inflicted a knife blow in the abdominal region of Dharam Sen causing him serious injuries. The incident was seen by the witnesses who were present at the spot. Thereafter both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The injured Dharam Sen fell down on the ground ...
Karan Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No.546 of 2004, Assey v. State of U.P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3)Cr. P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut against the revisionists of this revision on 26.10.2004 by opposite party no.2, Assey. According to the applicant of the above application various offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 & 120-B, IPC have been committed by the revisionists. It has further been alleged in the said application that when opposite party no.2 had failed to lodge an F.I.R. in the case he approached the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate with the said application. After hearing the applicant the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the view that there was no substance in the application moved before him and therefore, he rejected it on 8.11.20...
Km. Indu Mishra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. A Division Bench of this Court noticed a conflict of opinion in the judgments of the Court delivered in Ram Lal vs. State of U.P., 2000 (41) ACC, 1715 and in Idrish vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2002 (44) ACC 1117 and has referred the following questions to be considered by a Larger Bench:- "(1)Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority acting under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is required to communicate to the person detained, regarding right of making representation to him in view of Apex Court's decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra)? If so, non communication would infringe fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution? (2)If the answer of question no.1 is in the affirmative, whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) to communicate the detenu's right within which the detenu is required to make representation to him i.e. before approval of the d...
Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This revision has been filed by the revisionist feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2003 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Jhansi. 2. The property in dispute is a motor vehicle which is a jeep having its Registration No. UP-93 H 2870. This jeep is the case property of Case Crime No. 529/03 under Section 394/411 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabad, Jhansi. It appears that during the course of investigation, the said vehicle was recovered by the police. The opposite party no. 2, Kamlesh Kumar Dubey, and the revisionist applied to the learned lower court for custody of the vehicle during pendency of the case. After hearing both the parties and the State, the learned lower court was of the opinion that opposite party no. 2 is entitled to the custody of the vehicle and, therefore, he released the vehicle to the custody of opposite party no. 2 on certain terms and conditions. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been filed. 3. When this revision was listed for h...
Shambhu Nath Sonkar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. We have heard Shri Umesh Vats for the petitioner. Shri S. Srivastava appears for United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the Deputy General Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office, Lucknow, as Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of reduction in basic pay by ten steps in the time scale applicable to the petitioner in terms of Rule 23 (e) of General Insurance (CA) Rules 1975. 3. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Administrative Officer (D), Branch Office, Deoria under Divisional Office, Gorakhpur of the Insurance Company. He was served with a charge sheet for having failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion of duty and acting grossly negligently in a manner, which was prejudicial to the interest of the company. In the imputation of misconduct in support of the charge it was alleged that Shri S.N. Sonkar was working as AAO (D), and on 20.09.2000, he issued motor cover note No. 100877 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »