Allahabad Court July 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.
Sahdeo Prasad S/O Sarjoo Prasad and. ors. Vs. Shiv NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants with the prayer that the impugned judgment and decree dated 15-03-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Pratapgarh in First Civil Appeal No. 343 of 1983 and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-08-1983 passed by the learned VIII Additional Munsif , Pratapgarh in R.S. No. 339 of 1980, may be quashed. 2. The brief facts, giving rising to this appeal, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit no. 339 of 1980, Sahdeo and Others Versus Shiv Narain and Others for permanent injunction with the allegations that the plaintiffs are Bhoomidhar in possession of Gata No. 1557 area 1-11-0 and the plaintiff, Sahdeo had planted tress of mango, Mauha, Neem and Babool etc. thereon. The defendants had no concern with the disputed land and they had never been in possession over the said land. The defendants started giving threats of raising...
Indian Telephone Industries Limited. Vs. M/S.Raj Enterprises.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Mr.Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Krishna Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th of February, 2010, passed by the District Judge, Rae Bareli in Civil Misc. Case No.3 of 2007 as well as the Award dated 10th of October, 2006, passed by the U.P. Industry Facilitation Council, Kanpur in Case No.IFC 04 of 2001. The order dated 9th of February, 2010 has been passed by the District Judge, Raebareli on the application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1996'), therefore, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 Mr.Bireshwar Nath, raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order passed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is appellable under Section 37 of the Act, 1996. He raised this object...
Bhola Nah. Vs. the Union of IndiA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Accused appellant Bhola Nath was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act and the trial court has awarded sentence to him ten years' R.I. and Rs. one lac fine and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo 2 & 1/2 years R.I.2. This appeal has been filed against this order of the trial court which was admitted for hearing. A prayer was also made on behalf of the accused-appellant to release him on bail during pendency of the appeal.3. As per prosecution case on 09.04.2004 at about 3:00 P.M. on the information, Officers of Narcotic Department arranged a raid and accused appellant was apprehended near Rajkiya Inter College, Barabanki having a Bag in his hand. After taking all precautions and giving required information to the accused-appellant when he was searched at about 4:30 P.M., in two packets 250 gms. each Morphine was recovered from his possession which was tested on the spot also. For that accused was not having any authority. C...
Jagdish Singh Chauhan. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the entire proceedings of case no.1072/IX/02 arising out of case crime no.281/02, under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC.2. It appears from the record that an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by O.P. No.2 Sri Naval Kishore Das alleged Chela of Shri Nimbark Sharan Ji in the court of the Additional CJM, Mathura alleging therein that Guru Nimbark Sharan Ji Maharaj was his Guru, who died in Vrindavan, District Mathura in the night between 12/13.2.81. Shri Nimbark Sharan Ji Maharaj and Prem Bihari had two plots of land at Dalwanal Kund, Vrindavan. After the death of Shri Nimbark Sharan Ji Maharaj the informant remained in possession over the aforesaid plots. Informant was coronetted as Mahant in place of Shri Nimbark Sharan Ji Maharaj. The informant after getting the plan approved by Nagar Palika and Development Authority in the year 1993 constructed 12 rooms, latrine, bathroom etc. on the afo...
Agori Nishad Navik Evam MatasyA. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Awasthi for the petitioners, Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.H. Khan has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Shri Shailendra Sharma has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are: The petitioner is a registered co-operative society of Nishads duly registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. There are several ghats on river Son which flows through District Sonebhadra. The said ghats are under the supervision and control of Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra. Settlement of ferry rights on the aforesaid ghats are made under the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. Government Orders dated 21/8/1981, 04/11/1981,19/2/1990 and 31/1/1994, lays down the procedure and m...
The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Authority,under the M.W.A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Raising a short controversy, the present writ petition which arises out of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, has been filed against the order dated 31.3.1995 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the difference in between the minimum wages and wages actually paid by the labour contractor along with the compensation to the extent of 10 times of such difference to the respondent Nos. 3 to 21 herein. No dispute with regard to the first part of the order, so far as it directs the payment of the difference of wages in between the minimum wages and the actual wages is there in the present petition. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that on the facts of the present case, the petitioner is not liable to pay compensation what to say 10 times of the differential amount.. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief;2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 21 filed 19 applications separately, under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. They claimed a total sum of Rs.24600/...
Pradeep Tandon, Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of case no.1231/08, under Section 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, pending before the Additional CJM, 1st, Rampur.2. It appears from the record that O.P. No.2 Ram Chandra Agarwal moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against the applicant and one Ram Murti alleging therein that he was the electricity consumer of connection no.55203/223, 66.340 H.P. He had closed his business in the year 1995 and therefore, did not need the aforesaid connection. He moved an application on 15.9.95 in the electricity department, Moradabad informing that he had closed his business and above connection be disconnected. On the instructions of the Higher Officers of the department his connection was disconnected and the electricity meter was taken away on 20.3.96 by Ram Murti, employee of the electricity department. Inspite of this dismantling he was not issued the last bill of the electric dues.3...
M/S. Medicine IndiA. Vs. State of U.P.and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Mr.Anil Kumar Tewari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th of January, 2010, passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.50 of 2004, whereby the petitioner's application for amendment i.e. application No.C- 27 has been dismissed as barred by time.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the suit challenging the award was filed within time, the application for amendment cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as the time provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only for presentation of the suit, but it is not meant for amendment. It is further stated that the necessary amendment can be made even after expiry of limitation provided for filing the suit. The learned District Judge has rejected the said application in the light of the decision ...
Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Vs. S/S Advance Spectra Tec (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Assessee-dealer is a Contractor registered in U.P. having one of its office outside the State of U.P.. For the purposes of execution of works contracts it procures material both by purchase from within the State of U.P. and by purchasing and importing material from outside U.P. or by transferring material from its office situate outside U.P.2. In the years in question i.e. 1996-1997 and 1997-98 the assessee transferred certain material from his office outside U.P. for the purposes of execution of works contracts in U.P. The assessing authority vide order dated 30.9.1999 imposed tax of Rs.10,87,479/- and Rs.7,44,745/- respectively by including the value of material so transferred from its office outside U.P. in the taxable turnover. On appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The order of remand passed by the first appellate authority was challenged by the assessee as well as the Revenue before the Trade Tax Tribunal in secon...
Shravan Kumar Pandey. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagriti Singh and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 30.11.2009 passed by respondent no.4, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Sub-Inspector treating him continuous in service with all the consequential benefits.3. The challenge in the present writ petition is that according to the respondents if it is proved regarding the plural marriage at the time of existence of first wife, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be granted in view of Rule 29 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956. According to the petitioner, some minor punishment in case it is proved that the petitioner has done the plural marriage, can be awarded after initiating any proceeding under the U.P. Police...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »