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.
Enaam Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
1. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 16.6.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Deoband, Saharanpur. 2. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the revisionist through which he had prayed for the release of cattle belonging to him which he was carrying them to some place within the State of U.P. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.6.2010 the complainant of this case V.L.Varun, Sub-inspector of Police Station Ladgaon, Saharanpur was patrolling in his beat. He received a telephonic message on his mobile phone that certain cows and a bull were being carried to certain place who were loaded on a Tata 207 truck. This information was given to the complainant by certain activists of Shiv Sena. At about 10 p.m. on the highway near the village Hasanpur Latuni, the complainant intercepted the said Tata 207 truck. When the said vehicle was searched it was found that 3 cows, one bull and two calves were laden on the sa...
Km. Pushpa Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
1. S.T. No. 3 of 2002 (old S.T. No. 55 of 2000) (State v. Manoj @ Chini) under section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 297 of 2000, Police Station Sipari Bazar, Jhansi was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved before that court by the revisionist. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and he disposed it of on 3.10.2002 and rejected the same. Hence the revision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged with the police against one Manoj @ Chini which was registered at the police station at Case No. 297 of 2000 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. In the F.I.R. the complainant Smt. Ram Pyari had alleged that the accused Manoj @ Chini had enticed away her minor daughter Km. Pushpa. The age of Pushpa has been disclosed in the F.I.R. as 14 years. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation the girl was recovered. She was medically examined and her ...
Firangi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Heard Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Respondent no.5 is the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, functioning as Prabandh Sanchalak of the Institution, who is already arrayed as respondent no.3. 2. This special appeal relates to the dispute of a claim by the appellant for his regularization under the provisions of Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1982'). 3. The admitted facts are that the appellant was appointed in a selection held by the District Inspector of Schools on 05.01.1993. Under the relevant provisions, it was the District Inspector of Schools, who was empowered to get the selection held for appointment of the teacher on ad hoc basis. There is also no dispute that the appellant was appointed against a substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis in terms of the relevant provisions and his selection and appointment ...
Smt. Tahira Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (Smt. Tahira) and the learned AGA for the respondents and perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure no. 4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar and order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure no. 5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sidharth Nagar in criminal revision no. 185/2009. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application under section 156 (3) CrPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case no.1203/2009. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the occurrence took place in Bombay, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 156 (3) CrPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was also of the same view and he accordingly dismissed the revision. The Additional Sessio...
Sri Pal Singh Vs. D.J.Banda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the present petitioner culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30th April, 1982. 2. The objections raised were considered by the Prescribed Authority and by means of the judgment, referred to above, it was held that the petitioner had 23 Bigha 13 Bishwa 10 Biswansi of land as surplus. This order was not subjected to any further challenge by the petitioner. The State was, however, not satisfied with the order so passed and therefore the State filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960, which was numbered as Appeal No. 62 of 1982 (State of U.P. vs. Shripal Singh. Before the Appellate Court the State canvased only one point, namely that the son of the petitioner namely Ram Sipahi was minor on the relevant date and therefore the entire land holding in his name was to be treated as part and parcel of the hold...
NavIn I. Harison and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This application has been field by the applicants Navin I. Harison, S.S.Nox, A.R.Stephen, and H.R.Mall with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. VII, Jhansi, in complaint case no. 299 of 2009 whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 420,467,468,120-B,504 and 506 I.P.C. and to quash the proceedings of complaint case no. 299 of 2009 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. Room no. 7, Jhansi. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sri Stiphen Singh, O.P. No.2 the same was treated as a complaint by the learned C.J.M. Jhansi vide order dated 30.5.2008, thereafter, the statement of O.P.No.2 was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of Harlet and Naresh Rai Kawar, has been recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., after considering the same the learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 7, Jhansi has taken cognizance and summo...
Ms Goenka Motors Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by the Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of. 3. The petitioners with intent to construct a showroom/ workshop over Plot No.694 village Andawa Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad, made an application on 29th December, 2009 for sanction of the building plan before the respondent No.2. No final decision having been taken by the respondents over the application within 90 days from the date of application, the petitioners treating the plan stood automatically sanctioned, proceeded with the construction work. An order dated 13th August, 2010 was passed by respondent No.3, Prabhari Adhikari (Bhawan), Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, cancelling the application for sanct...
Ravindra Kumar Vs. Sachiv Basic Shiksha Board, U.P. at Allahabad and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is in appeal against the judgement and order dated 07.09.2010, whereby the approval granted by order dated 23.9.2006 insofar as the appointment of the appellant herein is concerned has been quashed. The learned Single Judge has further directed the Management to recommend the name of the candidate selected by the Selection Committee in the interview held, as reflected in the proceedings, which have been produced before the Court. 3. The grievance of the appellant was that his name was duly recommended by the Committee of Management and as such he was appointed. As the controversy was raised and considering the finding of the learned Single Judge, we had called upon the respondents to produce the records and accordingly, the records were produced before us and we find that the application of the appellant was very much on record and, in fact, his name has been recommended by the duly Selection Committee. The other aspect of the ...
Bhisham Pal and Another Vs. Rajnish Agarwal and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2007, Rajnish Agarwal versus Bisham Pal and another whereby objection application no. 36-Ga of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed SCC Suit No. 35 of 1993, Rajnish Agarwal and another versus Bhisham Pal and another for eviction of the petitioners tenants from the shop in dispute in the court below. The petitioners filed objection thereto denying the averments made therein. 4. The trial Court partly decreed the suit vide order dated 20.5.1998. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.5.1998, the petitioners filed SCC Revision No. 62 of 1998 before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Civil Misc....
Bharat Bhushan Chhabra Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Tiwari for the applicant, Mr. S.M. Ali for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition for quashing the proceeding of the complaint case no. 624/2004 Vishal Chhabra vs. Bharat Bhushan pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. 3. The applicant is the real uncle of the respondent no.2 and admittedly litigations are going on between them. A case under section 107/116 IPC was also initiated against the applicant and his son. The respondent no.2 is an advocate. It is alleged that the applicant had moved the application dated 25.11.2003 against the respondent no.2 making allegations that the respondent no.2 was harassing him and his family members by lodging false cases. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 used to say that he was an advocate, therefore, the police also could not do any thing against him. The respondent no.2 then filed the impugned complaint in the court of Chief J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »