Allahabad Court December 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.
Kanhaiyya Lal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
1. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan for the petitioners, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jamwant Maurya and Sri M.C. Gupta for respondent no. 4 and learned standing counsel representing the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners who are small businessmen/traders of Nagar Panchayat Raya, District Mathura have challenged the vires of bye-laws namely; "Nagar Panchayat Raya Ki Seemantargat Vanijya Niyantran Hetu License Niyamawali" dated 13.8.2001. 3. The Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the population of Nagar Panchayat Raya is not more than 30,000, the petitioners are carrying business in general merchandise, building materials, provisional stores, cloths etc. Citations dated 16.6.2010 have be...
State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Avas And Another Vs. A.D.J. And Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. Heard learned learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2000 by which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the order dated 22.10.2002 by which the appeal itself has been allowed. 3. It appears that upon enforcement of the Act, notice under section 8 of the Act was issued to the respondent no. 2 proposing to declare 5955.37 sq. meters of land as surplus in the Urban Angloration Area of Allahabad in Peepal Gaon. It appears that an exparte order dated 22.2.1985 was passed holding 5955.37 sq. meters of land as surplus. Thereafter, proceedings under section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Act were also initiated and after vesting of the land, a notice under section 10 (5) of the Act was issued on 26.12.1996 calling upon the respondent no. 1 to hand over possession of the surplus land and the Collector, Allahabd was also ask...
Ramesh Singh At Kaka Vs. Union Of India Thru' Secy. And Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. Heard Mr. D.R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Sisodia, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P, Mr. Sachi Kant Misra appearing on behalf of Union of India and perused the record. 2. In the present case continued detention of the petitioner has been challenged on the ground of delay in deciding the representation by union of India. 3. The brief facts of the case is that considering the report of the sponsoring authority for preventive action under the National Security Act, the District Magistrate, Mau, passed the detention order dated 23.12.2009 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the said act, since the activities of the petitioner was found prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention along-with the other materials was served through jail authorities to the petitioner since he was already in judicial custody at district jail, Mau. The petitioner submitted his rep...
Father Thomas and ors Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. We have heard Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, Sri D.S. Mishra and Sri Dileep Gupta Advocates for the private parties and Sri Patanjali Mishra, A.G.A., Sri Neeraj Verma, A.G.A., and Sri D.R. Chaudhari, Governemnt Advocate for the State of U.P. Written arguments and case law were filed by the State. However inspite of time being allowed, no written arguments or case law were filed by the private counsel, except Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, who had filed some case law in 2008 in the leading petition, Crl. Revn. No. 1640 of 2000 on behalf of Father Thomas, and has also supplied us with some additional photocopies of relevant case law. 2. This Full Bench was constituted after an order dated 28.9.01 was passed by the Single Judge (Hon. J.C. Gupta, J), who was examining the power of the Court in a Criminal Revision to question an order of the Magistrate issuing a direction under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter 'Cr.P.C' or 'the Code') to...
Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. All the petitioners of these seven writ petitions, who were appointed as temporary Forest Guards by the order dated 13th September, 2007 to fill the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, have sought the quashing of the office orders dated 13th July, 2010 by which their services have been dispensed with under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 16th December, 2009 passed by the State Government for cancellation of the examination on the basis of which the petitioners had been appointed. 2. An advertisement was published on 22nd May, 2007 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mirzapur for filling the backlog reserved category vacancies of Forest Guards and Driver. The petitioners appeared at the written examination and were called for interview and physical test and were ultimately appointed by the lett...
Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 07.01.2006 (Annexure-2) passed by Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda rejecting the petitioner's appeal and order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by District Magistrate, Gonda by which the petitioner's application for grant of licence for 315 Bore Rifle has been rejected. 3. In brief the facts of the present case are that the petitioner has applied for a licence of N.P. Bore Rifle in the year 1999, thereafter the O.P. No. 3/District Magistrate, Gonda/Licencing Authority called the report from the concerned police authority in order to consider the matter regarding grant of arm licence. 4. On 22.02.2005, Superintendent of Police, Gonda submitted a report against the petitioner stating therein that a criminal case No. 154 of 2000 under Se...
Hakim Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to Central Bureau of Investigation/C.B.C.I.D. to investigate the case in Case Crime No. 241 of 2008, under Sections 302, 218, 219, 118,119, 220, 364, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Shergarh, district Mathura relating to the abduction and fake encounter of the petitioner's brother Pappu. 2. Heard Sri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and have gone through the entire record. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's brother Pappu was picked up by two police constables of Police Station Shergarh, district Mathura on 15.5.2006 from his house and thereafter he did not return back home. Later on the petitioner received an information that Pappu and one Akbar who belonged to State of Haryana was shot dead in a police encounter thereafter the petitioner sent a complaint to the higher officials on 16.5.2006 but the Police Station Farah in whose custo...
Lalani Pandey at Vijay Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey, S/o Late Ram Kumar Pandey, R/o Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebereli for issuing a writ of certiorary to quash the impugned externment order dated 15.7.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Raebareli (opposite party no. 3 which is contained in Annexure 2) as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 08.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (opposite party no. 2 which is contained in Annexure 1) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid externment order. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated as under: 3. The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Raebareli on 16.11.2009 issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with the allegation that on the basis of information re...
Prabhuji and anr. Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Appointment and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. The dispute between the promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been the unending process since decades. Either side being the member of same fraternity, has been approaching for judicial review of the action of the High Court on one or the other ground but it appears that for one or the other reasons may be, for some fault on the part of the High Court to adjudicate the controversy, justice has not been done. In pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the dispute within six months, the present Division Bench has been constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court to settle the law on the question involved in the writ petition. 2. It is the irony of fate that those, who impart justice to citizens or litigants, are not satisfied for one or the other reason resulting in multiplicity of litigation with regard to seniority and consequential benefits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service (in shor...
Baikunt Lal Pandey and Others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. This First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the order dated 11.10.2010 (passed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC) and its consequential order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 142 of 1990 whereby the respondent no.2, namely Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, has been appointed Receiver of the property that is subject matter of compromise decree in Original Suit No. 94 of 1923. 2. Sri C.L.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri B.D.Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan and Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsels for the respondent no.2 have been heard at length. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged between the appellant and the respondent no.2. With the consent of all the counsels this appeal is being decided finally at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »