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.
Shah Nawaz Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffar Nagar. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the revisionist is involved in Case Crime No. 215 of 2007 under Section 302/307 I.P.C., Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar. On 12.6.2007, the mother of the revisionist moved an application before the Juvenile Justice Board ( for short "the Board") as constituted under Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (For short "the Act") with the prayer that the revisionist be declared a juvenile as on the date of the alleged incident his age was less than 18 years. The learned Board considered the said application, collected oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the evidence available before him and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, allowed the said application by holding that on the relevant da...
Ashraf Khan Vs. Board of Revenue and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. Heard Mr.T.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 13.5.1981 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Objection No. 97 of 1979, whereby he has disapproved the auction sale and has allowed the objection raised against the auction and also set aside the auction dated 18th May, 1979 as also the order dated 14th May, 1986 passed by the Board of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow, whereby the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly has been upheld. 3. The recovery proceeding was initiated against sale tax dues, pursuant to which the respondent?s land was auctioned. The highest bid was offered as Rs. 15,000/- , in furtherance thereof, the sales certificate was issued on 4.8.1979 in favour of the petitioner. However, objection was filed by the respondents under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (H...
Banarsi Lal and Others Vs. the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy., and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by learned C.J.M., Ambedkar Nagar in criminal case No. 4496 of 2010 arising out of chargesheet submitted in case No. 596 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Baskhari Bazar, District Ambedkar Nagar 3. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case after collecting the material by the I.O. chargesheet has been submitted. The material collected by the I.O. disclosing the cognizable offence. There is no illegality in submission of the chargesheet, thereafter the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on 12.10.2010. The learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in taking the cognizance, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant app...
Jgdish Prasad Singh Vs. the State of U.P and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant and other against the order dated 25. 11.2010 passed by A.C.J.M.-I, Faizabad in case No. 340 of 2010 whereby the application under section 156(3) has been allowed and the Officer Incharge of the police station concerned has been directed to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of powers conferred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is illegal, it has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. It has been rebutted by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order because on the basis of the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a prima facie cognizable offence is made out and the allegations are of such nature which requires investigation. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Considering th...
Ram Pal Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Heard Sri K.S.Rastogi for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla (respondent No.2), who is appearing in person and Ms. Savita Jain appearing for rest of the private respondents. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage.2. Basically, the orders impugned in the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings, this Court would have declined to exercise its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but considering submission that the impugned revisional order is wholly without jurisdiction, which is a well established exception in such matter, as referred above, I am inclined to proceed further decide the matter accordingly.3. The short question up for consideration is whether after amendment made in 1997, second revision would lie or not.4. The petitioner initiated mutation proceedings ...
Mohd. Alliyas Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.and learned counsel for O.P. No. 4. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charesheet dated 17.2.2009 in case crime No. 4840 of 2008 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Faizabad in case No. 13423 of 2009. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the applicant has performed the marriage with the prosecutrix, from their wedlock two children have been born. According to the medical examination report the age of prosecutrix was 22 years, according to the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was aged about 20 years and she has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that she has performed physical relationship with her free will and consent and she has performed the marriage. In such circumstances, the char...
Sita Ram Tekariwal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. The petitioner is a licensee under UP Cinema Regulation Act 1955 and is entitled to exhibit motion films in his Cinema Hall.2. A producer of Bhojpuri Film approached the petitioner for shooting a part of a feature film in his Cinema Hall.3. The petitioner sent an application before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur/Licensing Authority informing that no shows of the film would be held on 25.5.2005 as the film was to be shot in the Hall.4. No reply of the aforesaid application was received by the petitioner from the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. The film was shot and no shows were held on 25.5.2005.5. The District Magistrate issued notices dated 9.11.2005 informing the petitioner asking him to show cause under U.P Entertainment and Betting Tax Act 1979 (the Act) why the loss in Entertainment Tax be not recovered from him and penalty be imposed for not holding any show.6. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.11.2005. However, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur rejected the same ...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, and ors. Vs. M/S. Aristo Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.8.2002 for the assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") raising following questions : 1."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to set aside the tax imposed on the sale of goods transferred in execution of work contract? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has rightly treated the printing work as job work in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement v. Commissioner of Customs JT-2001-(2)-141?" 2. The respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee") was engaged in printing of lottery tickets. The printing was carried on the paper supplied by the parties. The ink and processing material including chemicals, used in the printing, have been provided by the assessee. The assessing authority levied tax on th...
Smt.Shashi Vs. State of U.P.Thr. PrIn Secy Engergy and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Heard Sri H.S.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner for quite some time. A very emphatic and passionate pleading has been raised by Sri Jain in his usual manner. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the opposite party No.2 as contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Further he has prayed that the result of the examination be declared which was held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.8.1998. The argument of Sri Jain is that the petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement and had taken examination but the result was not declared. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing No.6267 (s/S) of 2001. The Court without making any observation and expressing any opinion on the merits of the case directed the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner. The impugned order is a result of the decision taken by the opposite parties in pursuance of the High Court's orders. 3. Counter affidavit has...
Mt. Anita Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate who appeared for the Election Commission and learned Standing Counsel.2. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the final result sheet Part 2 dated 14.11.2010 in respect to Block Sahawar and Ganj Dundawara of 5 Territorial Constituency of Zila Panchayat Kanshiram Nagar.3. There is a further prayer that result sheet issued by the returning officer be not given effect and the State Election Commission and District Collector be directed to prepare a fresh, proper and correct tabulation chart on the basis of proper and correct counting of votes received at returning officer's table and then to issue correct final result sheet.4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as no grounds are provided in the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and U.P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994 hereinafter referred as the Act/Rules to challenge the election of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »