Allahabad Court February 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.
Dr. P.L. Sharma Vs. Director of Higher Education and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and perused the record.2. The present Writ Petition was filed on 27.02.2003. Counter affidavit, sworn on 02.07.2004, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.3. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by various decisions of this Court, referred to hereinafter in the present judgment, and therefore, the present Writ Petition may be decided at this stage itself.4. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner Dr. P.L. Sharma was appointed as a Lecturer in S.M. Inter College, Chandausi in the year 1966; and that in December, 1972 the petitioner was absorbed as Lecturer in S.M. (P.G.) College, Chandausi. The initial appointment of the petitioner was on probation, however, on 09.10.1974 the petitioner was confirmed. The date of birth of the petitione...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Secy. Deptt. of Finance
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard parties counsel and perused record.2. Solitary argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Registrar Firms, Society and Chits Lucknow, lacks jurisdiction while passing the impugned order contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.3. Sri Manish Kumar learned Counsel for the respondents submits that while passing the impugned order, the Registrar has observed that the petitioner committed fraud and interpolated the record. Accordingly, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order.4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was heard by the Registrar Firms, Society and Chits Lucknow, while adjudicating the controversy. However, in case, the Registrar Firms, Society and Chits Lucknow was having no jurisdiction, he could not have recorded finding with regard to controversy even if the fraud was committed. The question of fraud is like any other evidence to be proved.5. The petitioner relied upon the judgment reported...
Ram Sukh Sharma Vs. K.D.A.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. These four appeals were clubbed together under the orders of the Court. All the four appeals involve common questions of fact and law, hence these are decided together by a common judgement and order.2. It is noteworthy that in the present litigation the lower courts , i.e., trial courts and the first appellate courts have at all stages recorded concurrent findings of fact to conclude that Buddh Narayan Agnihotri or the persons Ram Sukh Sharma and others alleging themselves to be his tenants were not the title holders, owners of the land in dispute situate in Kakadev, Kanpur Nagar. They were tress passers and were in illegal and unauthorised possession over the land in dispute.3. It emerges from the record that in furtherance of planned development of Kanpur city which was expanding in all the directions, a housing scheme was to be established in Kakadev area in the western side of the Kanpur city. A large chunk of agricultural land in village Kakadev, Pargana and T...
Mukhtayar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Mukhtayar Ahmad and learned AGA.2. Objections filed by the State is taken on record.3. Prayer for bail has been made by appellant Mukhtayar Ahmad in Crl. Appeal No. 5633 of 2009 as he has been convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur Under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment of six months. He has further been convicted Under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to one year RI in S.T. No. 105 of 2008 relating to P.S. Mandi District Saharanpur.4. Prosecution case in brief is that victim Km. Fatima is the daughter of the appellant Mukhtayar Ahmad. About 10 years back he had divorced his wife and by a judicial order got the custody of the victim and her brother Bilal who were minors at that time. In due course of time when the victim grew up, the appellant repeatedly committed rape on her after threatening to kill her. ...
Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Kedia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. The writ petition was allowed after hearing Sri Tarun Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Wajid Ali learned Counsel for the respondent in the open court. It has been brought to my notice that the order has been uploaded without correction and signature. In view of that the order dated 07.01.2010 is recalled and following order is being passed.2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 16.4.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Courts, Gorakhpur in P.A. Case No. 22 of 2003 (Vinod Kumar Kedia v. Ganga Prasad and Anr.) and 16.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 1) Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (Ganga Prasad and Anr. v. Vinod Kumar Kedia) respectively. Vide order dated 16.04.2008 the application of the respondent (Landlord) Vinod Kumar Kedia filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed with the direction to va...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Manoj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 24.3.1999.2. The respondents Manoj Singh and others filed writ petition No. 99 (Tax) of 1998 for quashing of the order dated 8.10.1997 passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad by which the representation of the respondents dated 12.2.1994 for grant of remission from payment of licence fee for the excise year 1993-94 was rejected. The petitioners/respondents further prayed that the recovery certificate issued by the Collector, Fatehpur dated 15.5.1994 be quashed and the appellants be directed to grant remission to the respondents for non supply of the minimum guaranteed quantity assured by them at the time of auction and not to recover licence fee to the extent of non supply of minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor.3. The learned Single Judge after considering the material available on the record held that the minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor ...
Pt. NawIn Sharma Vs. Branch Manager, United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the rejection letter of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No. 9) in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Management, Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary Central Salt Mazdoor Union : (2008) 11 SCC 278 and has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant housing loan to the petitioner within the shortest possible time to be fixed by this Court as the matter of being identical nature has been decided by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14976 of 2001 which is binding upon the respondents in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. reported in : (2008) 10 SCC 1.2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that this second writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for relief and cause of action given in the instant writ petition in consonance to the judgment passe...
Devi Saran Mishra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
V.K. Shukla, J.1. In the present writ petition, subject matter of challenge is the order passed in summary court martial proceeding, wherein sentence has been awarded to the petitioner to serve rigorous imprisonment for six months and to be dismissed from service. Against the said order in question, petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed on 18.05.1989 by mentioning that the same lacks substance. At the said juncture present writ petition has been filed before this Court on 07.03.1990.2. On 07.12.2003 in the absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner, present writ petition was dismissed, and thereafter an application was moved for recall the said order. Said application has been allowed on 09.12.2009, and thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up.3. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Sunit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that this Court should take note of the change in the legal provision as has been introduced under ...
Laxman Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
V.K. Shukla, J.1. In the present case, Pradhan of village Gauripur, Jawaharnagar, Tehsil Baghpat, District Baghpat died on 22.10.2009, on account of which vacancy occurred on the office of Pradhan. On 4.11.2009 District Magistrate proceeded to nominated Raju to function as officiating Prahdan. Said order is subject matter of challenge before this Court contending therein that petitioner is having majority support of member of Gram Panchayat i.e. 9 members, out of 13 members and wishes of the members have been ignored.2. Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, Advocate, learned Counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, at no point of time, petitioner had ever given up office of pradhan and as such arrangement, which has been made is unjustifiable arrangement. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on the other hand contended that rightful arrangement has been made, as such no interference be made.3. At this...
Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Home and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police? invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991 for the sake of brevity].3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was always appreciated by the higher authorities for his good character, utmost devotion and dedication in the department but the impugned orders of dismissal of petitioner's services are not based on the correct facts of the case vis-a-vis the same are violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He submits that the impugned order is not only contrary to the procedure as transcribed under Rules, 1991 but it also clearly contrary to the provisions of Article...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »