Allahabad Court March 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.
Silver Moon Knox Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N.C. Tripathi for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Sri R.P. Tewari for respondent No. 5/1 and Sri Rahul Jain for respondent No. 6.2. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.3. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi (respondent No. 2), whereby it has recalled its approval dated 2.12.1997 granted to the petitioner's promotion to the post of Principal in Christian Inter College, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as 'College') on the ground that neither the petitioner was qualified for the said promotion nor the procedure followed by the Committee was consistent with Section 16F and 16FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as '1921 Act'), the present writ petit...
Triloki Nath Agarwal and ors. Vs. Yogendra Nath Dixit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant in the review petition/ respondent in the writ petition.2. S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 1981 was instituted by the petitioners landlords against original respondents No. 1 to 8 some of whom were alleged by the plaintiffs to be their tenants and rest sub-tenants of the tenants. J.S.C.C. in 1991 held that complicated question of title was involved and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for filing before civil court. (The alleged tenants had claimed title in themselves.) Revision filed against the said order was dismissed. Through my judgment dated 18.09.2008, I allowed the writ petition, set aside both the orders passed by the courts below and directed the trial court/ J.S.C.C. to decide the suit.3. The main argument raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the earlier judgment of this Court passed in Second Appeal No. 3246 of 1975 was not relevant and admissible under any of the Sections 40 to 44 o...
Girijesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. The short controversy involved in this case is whether U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as '1975 Rules') are applicable to a member of U.P. Police Force covered by the provisions of Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1861') and rules and regulations framed thereunder. The order impugned in this writ petition dated 10.8.2007 has been passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura in purported exercise of power under 1975 Rules.2. The issue is no more res integra having been decided by this Court in the case of Praveen Tyagi v. State (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54350 of 2007) decided on 21.8.2009 wherein (Para 11 to 16) this Court has held as under:11. The question as to whether the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will prevail or the Police Regulations, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla ...
Pancham Giri Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioner, a Head Constable of the U.P. Police and a government servant, has been dismissed from service on the charge of contracting a second marriage, even though the first spouse was living without permission of the competent authority. This case is not unique because of the point of law involved, but because of its peculiar facts where the petitioner has been assessed by the respondents to be the perpetrator of his own misfortunes. Interestingly enough, the petitioner basking in the glory of his cultural belief, set upon to have a second wife during the life time of the first one, only to realize after quarter of a century that he was guilty of misconduct as a government servant for having entered into this bigamous relationship.2. This began with, as usual, by a complaint made by one Mr. Matamber Tiwari, who is a resident of the same village as the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that Mr. Matamber Tiwari was annoyed on account of a land transaction, which i...
Ram Pher and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri T.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Sri G.S. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record.2. Under challenge is an order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad on 10.3.2010, disposing of the revision preferred under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This order has been passed in furtherance of directions and observations contained in a judgment dated 17.2.09 rendered by this Court in a revision Ram Pyare v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. preferred in the year 1992. The original consolidation dispute arose in the year 1988 and as such it requires expeditious adjudication by this Court as more than about 22 years have gone. The land chaks in the concerned village have not yet been settled even after several years of conclusion of consolidation proceedings in the village.4. It emerges from ...
Naresh Kumar Mishra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
Amitava Lala, A.C.J.1. This public interest litigation has been instituted by three Advocates of this Court with the supporting affidavit that whatever statements they have made by way of this writ petition are true to their personal knowledge. However, on enquiry, we have come to know that they have taken informations from others but they have no personal knowledge with regard to such informations. However, at the initial stage, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners has contended before us that the petitioners have made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain informations and in the absence thereof, they will not be in a position to establish their case, therefore, as and when such informations will be received, the same will be filed by way of supplementary affidavit. Presently, they have no source of information other than the source of newspaper cuttings and electronic media. He has further frankly confessed, out of his...
Kapil Deo Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2010
1. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 30.06.2006 whereby his representation for promotion against the post of Lecturer (Economics) in the institution has been rejected. 2. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : Janta Inter College, Sohsa Mathiya, District Kushi Nagar, is an aided and recognized Intermediate college. Provisions of Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder as also those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. The petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher in the said institution on the recommendation of the Selection Board on 16.04.1998. It is stated that the petitioner has been continuously working as such since then. Post of Lecturer (Economics) is stated to have fallen vacant on 30.06.2006. According to the petitioner the vacancy fell within the quota reserved for p...
Ms Areva T and D India Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
1. Heard Shri Vijay Ratan Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the employer and Shri K.P.Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Miss Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the workmen. First writ petition has been filed by the employer and the second writ petition by eight concerned workmen. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that as the second writ petition by the workmen is for implementation of the award which has been challenged by the employer in the first writ petition hence after decision on the first writ petition, second writ petition will automatically become infructuous.2. 1The first writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 1.2.2007 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.), Allahabad in eleven adjudication cases numbered as adjudication case nos. 17 of 2000 to 26 of 2000 and adjudication case no.69 of 1999.3. The workmen had complained that their services had wrongly been terminated on ...
Kalyan Sansthan Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
1. Heard the counsel for the appellants Sri Ram Avtar Verma and Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant no. 1, a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the appellant no. 2 its founder, feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of their writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 14.2.2011 issued by the Deputy Registrar under Section 12-D of the Act, have preferred the present special appeal. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice has been issued mala fide and against the provisions of Section 24 (5) of the Act. 3. His submission is that before issuance of the notice aforesaid, opportunity ought to have been afforded to the appellant society for getting the shortcomings removed, if at all had been pointed out by the Registrar and only on failure to make good the deficiencies so pointed out, any action under...
Satish Kumar Singh. Vs. State of U.P., and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel who appears for the Bank and learned Standing Counsel.2. Challenge in this petition is recovery proceeding by which a particular amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery proceeding and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition.3. Submission is that if reasonable time is allowed to pay the amount sought to be recovered, petitioner may be able to pay the same and irreparable injury on account of arrest and auction of property may be avoided.4. To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank submits that intention of the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the petitioner's future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in terms of the agreement has not been paid and now...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›