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.
Attar Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Alld. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
1.ThepresentWritPetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiahasbeenfiledbythepetitioner,inter-alia,makingthefollowingprayers:- "(i)issueawrit,orderordirectioninthenatureofcertiorariquashingtheorderdated04-12-2001passedbytherespondentNo.1(AnnexureNo.9totheWritPetition)andtheordersdated07-10-95&30-10-95(AnnexureNo.1totheWritPetition),10-04-95and05-05-95(AnnexureNo.2totheWritPetition)passedbytherespondents. (ii)issueawrit,orderordirectioninthenatureofmandamusdirectingtherespondentsnottogiveeffecttotheordersdated04-12-2001,07-10-95,30-10-95,10-04-95and05-05-95. (iii)issueanyotherwrit,orderordirectionwhichthisHon'bleCourtmaydeemfitandproperinthecircumstancesofthecase. (iv)awardthecostsofthepetitiontothepetitioner." 2.ItappearsthatthepetitionerwasworkingundertherespondentNos.2to6onthepostofElectricianSkilledGrade.Bytheorderdated9thOctober,1992,thepetitionerwaspromotedtothepostofElectricianHighlySkilledGrade-IIwitheffectfrom24thJune,1987. 3. Copyofthesaidorderdated9thOctober,1992hasbee...
Raj Kishore and Others Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2010
1. This appeal is at the instance of the six accused-persons namely Raj Kishore, Hira Lal, Raj Bux, Subedar, Ramdhani, Deo Prasad who were convicted by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Session Trial No. 242 of 1978 State vs. Raj Kishore & Ors. All the six accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/149 for life imprisonment. In addition, Raj Kishore, Hira Lal and Raj Bux were sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Subedar, Dev Prasad and Ramdhani were sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Accused Ramdhani died during the pendency of the appeal. Report of his death was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda dated 20.07.2007 is available on the record, hence appeal stands abated on his behalf. 3. Prosecution story as stated in the FIR is that on 28.06.1977 at a...
Vijay Kumar Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
1. Heard Mr. Salil Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Anadi Banerji for the respondent no.2 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case no. 5133 of 2006 (State vs. Kripal Singh Abott & others), arising out of crime no. 208 of 2003, under sections 406, 504, 420, 201 and 120-B IPC, police station Hazratganj, district Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow and also for quashing the order dated 20.3.2010 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's discharge application and the order dated 6.7.2010 whereby a non bailable warrant has been issued against him. 3. The learned AGA raised the question of maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the first petition, which was also for quashing the charge sheet as well as the summoning order has already been dismis...
Kamal Raj Patpatiya Vs. Smt. Har Bai Sahu and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 4.10.2001 passed by the prescribed authority/J.S.C.C. Jhansi in P. A. Case No. 62 of 2007 (Smt. Har Bai Sahu v. Parvesh Chandra Patpatiya ) whereby it has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for his impleadment in release proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Indisputably Sri Sikandar Lal Patpatiya, the father of the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed shop. He died on 15.2.2004 leaving behind, inter alia, the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 (sons) as his legal heirs. The release application which was registered as P. A. No. 62 of 2007 was filed by the land lady namely Smt. Har Bai Sahu (respondent No. 1) against the Opposite Party No. 2 (one of the son of the original tenant late Sri Sikandar Lal Patpatiya). 3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is contesting the release application. After almost three years an impleadmen...
The British India Corp. Ltd.Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against a Labour Court award dated 7.6.2001 as published on 22.8.2001. 3. The respondent workman holding the post of a Clerk in the petitioner establishment raised a claim that he is entitled to the designation and pay scale of a Technical Supervisor since he was performing the work of that post. Upon a failure report of the Conciliation Officer, the State Government referred it as an industrial dispute under section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Kanpur which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 230 of 1996. 4. The case set up by the workman before the Labour Court was that he was holding the post of a clerk in the Carding and Spinning Department but on the retirement of the Technical Supervisor in April, 1994, he started discharging his functions since May, 1994 but without corresponding designation or pay scale. The petitioner contested the claim and alleged that the workman ...
Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
1. This case is a straight example of the skill of the administrative authorities in twisting the facts and to make this Court and its judgements a tool to accomplish their vicious objectives and goal. 2. Apparently the prayer made by the petitioner is a simple one, i.e., a mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner as earlier as possible. The writ petition has eleven paragraphs and five grounds. 3. In nutshell, salary has been claimed for the period of 27.06.2006 to 14.08.2008. However going a little bit deeper one would find the reason for non-payment of salary for the aforesaid period. It appears that the petitioner was working as an Attendent at District Women Hospital, Etawah. Wherefrom she was shifted in the same city to District Hospital vide transfer ordder dated 27.06.2006 passed by Sri M.P. Bansal, Director (Medical Care). The petitioner did not join at the place of transfer and continue to mark her attendance at District Wo...
Faiyaz Vs. the State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
1. Heard Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, 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 18.10.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Case No. 1511/2010, under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby he has rejected the application moved by the petitioner to release his vehicle seized by the A.R.T.O., Ambedkar Nagar under Section 207 of the Act. 3. The only question involved for consideration before this Court is whether the vehicle under release seized by Assistant Transport Officer, Ambedkar Nagar under Section 207 of the Act can be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which can be decided at this...
Swami Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier came up before this Court praying for Debt Waiver Relief under the Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 18th May, 2009 to decide the claim of the petitioner relating to the waiver as alleged. 3. Petitioner had taken a loan for the purchase of a tractor. The Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 defines the type of loans for which the said relief is applicable. Under Clause 3.3 of the said scheme, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the term Investment Loan has been defined as investment credit for direct agricultural activities e.g. deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/ pair of bullocks etc. The petitioner has admittedly taken the loan for the purchase of a tractor and therefore the said loan falls within the definition of an investment loan. 4. Under clause 4.1 of the schem...
Ms Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar and Industries Limited, Vishal Khand, Gomti ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. We have heard Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow (respondent no.3) and prays for quashing of the same as also for a direction to the respondents to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner's Company under the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 with the consequential benefits. A further prayer has been made to quash the recovery certificate issued by the respondents for realising of purchase tax and benefits/exemption obtained by the petitioner in pursuance to the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004. They also pray that the Government Order dated 4....
Krishna Gopal Vs. Labour Court (iii) Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 25.02.1995 given by Presiding Officer (III), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.87 of 1989. The matter, which was referred to the labour court, was as to whether the action of the employer respondent No.2, M/s New Victoria Mills (Unit of N.T.C.) U.P. Limited of not promoting the petitioner, who was senior clerk in E.S.I. Section as In-charge, E.S.I. Section was just and valid or not. A similar reference had earlier been made in respect of another similarly situate employee Ram Raj Yadav, respondent No.3. That case was registered as Adjudication Case No.40 of 1989 and was decided in favour of Ram Raj Yadav on 29.04.1990 by the labour court directing the employer to give designation and pay-scale of In-charge E.S.I. Section. In the award dated 25.02.1995 given in the matter of the petitioner, it was held that as post of In-charge, E.S.I. Section had already been given to Sri Ram Raj Yadav pursu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »