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.
Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Vitta Viheen Shikshak Sangh Vs. Election Commi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The petitioners had approached this Court praying therein for various reliefs on the ground that eligible teachers should not be debarred from voting in the elections of Teachers Constituencies in the U.P. Legislative Council. 2. The petitioners principle contentions were, firstly, that though they have submitted their applications for inclusion of their names in the voters' list, but that had not been considered by the respondents and consequently the names should be included and they be entitled to participate in the elections, failing which the electoral roll earlier prepared alone should be considered and the guidelines which are in force since 4.12.2009 be followed. 3. The second relief during the course of the arguments advanced before us is that though the Election Commission has notified the date for the process of various stages of elections, yet the Governor has not issued the requisite notification as contemplated under Section 16 of the Representation of People Act 1951 ...
Rajendra Nath Shukla Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders dated 12.09.2006, 12.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 1, and order dated 25.09.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, appended as Annexures-5, 7 & 8 respectively to this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner came into possession of a tenanted portion consisting of one room of House No. 8/175 Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, prior to the year 1966. He further submits that there is various documents like driving licence and birth certificate which show that the petitioner has been living in the house in dispute since long. It is stated that one daughter born to him on 29.04.1972 establishes that petitioner was living as a tenant of one room and latrine since 1966 prior to enforcement of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, ...
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Daya Sagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The Special Appeal No. 303 of 2007 arises out of a short judgement of learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2000, by which he allowed the Writ Petition No. 16944 of 1994 for payment of salary to Shri Daya Sagar Das and Shri Ram Sewak, Assistant Teachers, teaching in the primary section of Ram Adhar Kanya Junior High School, Gaushala, Maharajganj, with half the arrears from the date other teachers were paid their salary. 2. In Special Appeal No. 1198/2008 learned Single Judge has, by his judgement dated 4.8.2004 in Writ Petition No. 1478/2000, found that the controversy involved is covered by the decision of this Court dated 2.2.2000 in Writ Petition No. 16944/1994, and gave the same relief of payment of salary and half of the arrears to three teachers namely Shri Ram Niwas Patel; Shri Rajesh Kumar Sahi and Shri Ganga Prasad teaching as Assistant Teachers in the primary school of the same Junior High School. 3. The facts, as given by learned Single Judge in his judgement in Writ Petition No...
Ghanshyam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The appellant was a village policeman appointed under the provisions of Oudh Laws Act, 1876 read with the provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations and U.P. Road Police Act, 1873. The appellant was dismissed from service by the order of the District Magistrate, Lalitpur dated 3rd June, 2006 which came to be assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 37265 of 2006 complaining of violation of the aforesaid provisions particularly Section 36 of the 1876 Act. The writ petition was allowed on 19th July, 2006 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice whereafter the District Magistrate passed a fresh order on 5th October, 2006 giving reasons for the dismissal. It is this order which was subjected to a challenge before the learned single Judge in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. 2. The contention raised by the appellant was that the provisions of Article 311 have been violated and there being no proper enquiry the order deserves to be set aside. App...
U.P.S.R.T.C. Bareilly Vs. Sudhir Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. We have heard Shri Samir Sharma for the UP State Road Transport Corporation- the respondent-appellant. Shri M.K. Sharma appears for the petitioner-respondent. 2. This intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, arises out of a judgement of learned Single Judge dated 21.3.2001 allowing the writ petition filed by Shri Sudhir Nigam- a Boiler Attendant at the Regional workshop of the Corporation at Bareilly, setting aside the order dated 29.6.1999 passed by Service Manager, Bareilly Region, Bareilly terminating his services, after a departmental enquiry. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Boiler Attendant Fitter in the Regional Workshop at Bareilly (Tyre Plant of the Corporation) on 29.4.1986. He was transferred on 18.4.1992 from Bareilly to Gola Depot. The petitioner challenged the order. The High Court stayed the transfer order on 1.5.1995, subject to decision of his representation. His rep...
Chandra Bahadur Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel of the respondents and perused the record. 2. The petitioner petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police Force in 1974. On 23.11.2002 he applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. A copy of this application is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 23.11.2003 to higher authorities. Thereafter it appears that no decision was taken thereon though the petitioner sent some further letters. The respondents instead of treating the petitioner having voluntary retired on 1st September, 2003, took him as if he has continued in service and by order dated 24th June, 2006 he was placed under suspension on the allegation that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 06.10.2004. A charge sheet was issued on 15th June, 2006 which culminated in an order of dismissal dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushamb...
Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The appellant, a teacher in the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad, was removed from his service on 1st August, 2006 which order was assailed by him in a writ petition giving rise to this special appeal, which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge on the ground of being not maintainable. 2. The learned single Judge following a Division Bench judgment delivered by us in the case of Union of India and others v. Dileep Kumar Pandey reported in 2010 (7) ADJ 97 (DB), has held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. This special appeal in effect raises the same issues once again which has already been answered by us in the aforesaid decision. 4. Sri B.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain facts and certain arguments had not been either advanced or considered by this Court while deciding the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey (supra) and, therefore, on the strength of the submissions raised, Sri Tiwari contends that if this court is persuaded to ...
Rishabh Dwivedi Vs. Registrar Central Admission Board State Entrance E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This special appeal arises out of an order dated 19.08.2010 passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant herein, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44731 of 2010. The learned Judge, by the said order, has dismissed the writ petition holding that once the appellant has been treated as NRI and has been given the benefit of NRI quota, then he has to pay the applicable requisite fees till he completes the study. 2. The relevant facts may be set out to decide the controversy in the present case. The State Government issued a notification dated 12th August, 2004 by which five percent seats in Government Engineering Colleges and Autonomous Engineering Colleges of the State of U.P. were reserved for Non Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as the ''NRI') on payment of fee of U.S. $ 5,000/- per annum. An advertisement was issued by the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') inviting applications for admission under NRI quota in B. Tech. and ...
Bhadra NaraIn Pathak and anr Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Heard Shri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for petitioners-appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents. 2. Shri Bhadra Narain Pathak and Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay have filed this Special Appeal against a short judgement of this Court dated 21.2.2008 in Writ Petition No. 9688 of 2008, which reads as follows:- "In view of the categorical findings of fact that the educational institution is not in existence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order at this stage. The writ petition fails and is dismissed." 3. It is contended by Shri Rajeev Misra that 'Sri Mahaveer Pathak Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Aswari, Raja Talab, Varanasi' is recognised by Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The petitioners are approved teachers and they are getting salary since 1983. There are two teachers in the institution. The students are regularly appearing from the institution in the examinations conducted by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Now the State Governme...
indra Pal and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 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 she feels so aggrieved. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.492 of 2006 State v. Indra Pal & others under sections 328, 304 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, whereby application of the accused - revisionists under section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 4. The facts of the case are that P.W.1 Smt. Amlawati, P.W.3 Neetu and P.W.5 Dr. Harish Chandra were examined as prosecution witnesses on 2.2.2007, 26.7.2007 and 24.4.2010 respectively, but they could not be cross-examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »