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.
Rajvir and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 941 of 2004 under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 IPC, whereby the application 174-Kha for recalling order dated 12.1.2009 was rejected. 4. Initially charge sheet was filed against the revisionists under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 IPC and the revisionists were granted bail. During pendency of the case, injured died. During pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the complainant for framing charge under section 302 IPC also on the ground that the injured died as a result of injuries sustain...
Smt.Mithilesh Kumari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard Sri Keshri Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.23624 of 2010, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.41012 of 2010 and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, Advocate for the respondents in both the writ petitions. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for State-respondents. 2. These two writ petitions challenging same notifications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Pleadings in Writ Petition No.23624 of 2010 have been exchanged and it is sufficient to refer to pleadings of the said writ petition for deciding both the writ petitions. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original records of the State Government pertaining to land acquisition in question, which has been perused by us. 4. Brief facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; The petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri A.K. Bhatnagar. None appeared for the respondent nor there is any request to adjourn or pass over the case.2. This special appeal has been filed with delay of more than eight months and twenty six days. It has been noticed that the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay not only contains vague and bald explanation, but also incorrect dates. Time was granted to the State to file better affidavit, but the so called affidavit does not explain anything for not filing the special appeal within time.3. However, since the matter relates to the financial burden upon the State Government, we have considered the special appeal on merits.4. The facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on 4.12.1958, as Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 45-100. Later on the State Government took over the National Homoeopathic Medical College and the pay of the respondent was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 100-160 f...
Mukesh. Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard Sri Satya Veer Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. Notice was personally served upon opposite party no.2, but he has not put in appearance. 3. This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 23.9.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No.443 of 2004, under section 376 IPC, whereby application 40-B filed on behalf of the revisionist Mukesh for declaring him to be a juvenile in conflict with law was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that on an application under section 7A of the Act filed on behalf of the revisionist, the court concerned was bound to hold an inquiry and should have reached a decision as to whether the revisionist was a juvenile or not on the date of incident. 5. Learned A.G.A....
Naveen Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, for the revisionist, Mr. Manmohan Singh and the learned AGA for the opposite party. 2. This is a revision against the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ballia in S.T. No. 459 of 2004, State vs. Kamlakant Chaubey & others, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revisionist's application for summoning witnesses under section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ;the Code'). 3. In the application moved under section 233 of the Code the revisionist made first prayer for summoning record of the departmental inquiry held against the S.H.O. Ram Prakash Bajpai, Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar and constables Lalta Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Rai and Amar Nath. It was contended in this regard that these persons had stated during the inquiry that they were not present at the police station at the time of the incident but during the trial they have stated otherwise. The other praye...
Prince Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This is a criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra (in short 'the Board'), in the case crime no. 365/2009, under sections 201, 411, 302, 364, and 394 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. The facts of the case are that the revisionist, who is an accused in the aforesaid case, moved an application for declaring him as a juvenile. On 2.9.2009, both the non-judicial members declared the revisionist as a juvenile against which the criminal appeal no. 168 of 2009 was filed, which was allowed by the appellate court on the ground that presence of Principal Magistrate was necessary in the Board. The order passed by the members of the Board without the presence of the Principal Magistrate ...
Ms. Oscan Enterprises Private Limited. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Develo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions are arising out of a plot of land, being Plot No. A-40, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 2. The first writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44529 of 2005, has been filed in the nature of mandamus for getting order or direction by the writ Court upon the respondents to allot the plot to the petitioner on the basis of its application dated 08th August, 2001. This writ petition was filed in this Court on 03rd June, 2005 praying inter alia as follows: "i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allot the plot no. A-4 (?) (A-40), Sector 62, NOIDA for which the petitioner had applied on 8.8.2001 accordingly the scheme known as "SCHEME FOR INSTITUTIONAL PLOTS" by treating the petitioner similarly to the other applicants of the same scheme for other plots; ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to discriminate the petitioner fro...
Chandra Mohan ShuklA. Vs. Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Shri Anupam Mehrotra learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection with submission that keeping in view the fact that election petition challenging the same election has been dismissed by this Court and also since the term of elected representation of the Rajya Sabha has expired petition should be dismissed as infructuous. It has been submitted that court should not adjudicate an academic issued when in any case the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit. 2. On the other hand, Shri Qamar Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue is of public importance hence court should decide the election petition. Solitary issue pending for adjudication is validity of amendment done in Representation in People Act which according to learned counsel for the respondents is only academic in nature. 3. The election of Council of State Rajya Sabha has been impugned in the present election petition. The election was notified by Election Commission of India...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Maqsood Mahmood and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. We have heard Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State appellant. Shri M. Islam and Shri N.I. Zafri appear for the petitioner-respondent. 2. The State of U.P. has filed this special appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 5.8.1997 in Writ Petition No.24805 of 1997, by which relying upon the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court in Jagat Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1993 (3) UPLBEC 1767 a direction has been issued to the Director of Technical Education, Government of U.P. to take immediate steps for release of the capitalised value of the pension of the petitioner for the period during which he had served under the State Government and to remit the same to the Aligarh Muslim University. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in the present case the petitioner-respondent was neither transferred nor absorbed in Aligarh Muslim University. He had resigned from the State Government on 30.9.1972. His resignation was accepted by t...
Moti Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. The appellant, a Constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, was terminated from service on 8th of July, 1973 after giving him one month's notice. The appellant had been terminated in the background that he had participated in the PAC revolt which had occurred in the year 1973. A large number of such Constables who were similarly situate, had approached this Court and certain directions were issued by the High Court to decide their representations and some writ petitions were also disposed of with a direction to reinstate such terminated employees. 2. The Constables fell into two categories, one who were permanent in service and the others who were treated to be temporary and their services had been dispensed with after giving one month's notice. The matter had been engaging the attention of the State Government pursuant to the aforesaid litigation, which was being contested and ultimately the State Government on its own issued a Government Order on 7th September 1998 for reinst...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »