Allahabad Court August 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.
Mangey Ram. Vs. Mangey Ram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Khasra No. 833 A area 2 Bigha 10 Biswa 1 Biswansi and Khasra No. 433 B area 16 Biswa 6 Biswansi, total 2 plots and total area 3 Bigha 8 Biswa 7 Biswansi are subject matter of the present writ petition. These plots were recorded in the name of Ajab Singh as his Bhumidhari land. The land was acquired through three registered sale deed dated 9th December, 1951, 17th September, 1954 and 21st January, 1967 jointly with Kehari Singh, grand father of the petitioner, Kaley Singh, father of the petitioner and Yash Pal, uncle of the petitioner.2. The present writ petition arises out of suit instituted by Somesh and Mange Ram on the allegations that on 11th March, 1985 Ajab Singh, who has died on 27th April, 1985 executed a registered will deed in their favour. Ajab Singh was unmarried and had no issue. After death of Ajab Singh, the original copy of the will was filed before Revenue Court in mutation proceedings where from it was lost. The cause of action for filing suit arises as the Tahasil...
The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. P.N.SharmA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Case called out. Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.2. Present appeal was admitted at the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in opining that where an evidence was submitted with the department before the date fo search, it cannot be considered for computation of undisclosed income u/s 158BB (1) when the word 'evidence' as appearing in Section 158 BB(1) does not exclude the evidence filed with the department before the date of search and also when the 'evidence' cannot be interpreted to mean only incriminating evidence."3. Assessee who was working as General Manager with Kuber Group of Companies faced the search and seizure operation at his residence as well as office premises on 8th May 1997. Pursuant thereto notice under Section 158 BC of the Act was issued and in compliance thereto Assessee filed return for the block period from 1st April, 1987 to 8th May, 1...
Smt. Anamika Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. The respondent no.2 has filed a counter affidavit. A rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has also been filed.3. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the charge sheet as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 9493 of 2007 (State of U.P. vs. Anamika), pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of crime no. 277 of 2007 under sections 403, 406, 465, 467 and 420 IPC, police station Sector-20 Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar.4. It is a dispute between the husband and the wife. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent no.2 is the husband. The respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 21.3.2007 at police station sector-20 Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar making allegation that the plot in question was purchased in the name of the petitioner from Noida Development Authority ...
Tellu, and Others. Vs. MukhA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court vide its order dated 21.5.2010 directed the learned counsel for the appellants to file certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 6.12.77 passed by the first appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.4.75. The typed copies of the same have been filed along with this application which are taken on record. The application is disposed of accordingly.2. The Court vide its order dated 21.5.2010 directed the learned counsel for the appellants to bring on record the substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought on record the substantial question of laws which are involved in this second appeal by means of the aforesaid application.3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the substantial question of law. The appeal is already admitted. Only substantial question of laws are to be framed which are as under:-(i) Whether the suit for cancellation of judgment and order...
Ram Gopal Yadav. Vs. Union of India, and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by respondent no.4/5, order dated 8.6.2010, 15.6.2010 and 11.6.2010 (annexed as Annexure No.1, Annexure No.2, Annexure No.3 and Annexure No.4 to the writ petition respectively);(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release the payment of salary to the petitioner since July 2009 along with other dues permissible under the law in terms of arrears and permit the petitioner to work as Inspector;(III) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.(IV) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."2. The parties were directed to file counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Now counter a...
Uma Shankar Singh. Vs. State of U.P., and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard Sri S.N. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the affidavits filed by the parties.2. The petitioner claims to be holder of arms licence and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 22 of 2002/03 whereby his appeal has been dismissed.3. According to Sri S.N. Verma the petitioner's licence was initially suspended and then cancelled on the basis that two criminal cases pending against him. He states that the two criminal cases were Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1) X S.C. S.T. Act and Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. in the district. According to him Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. has been dismissed on 30.6.2003 and in so far as Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 is concerned the same has also been dismissed and the petitioner has been given a c...
Yogendra Vishwakarma @ Puru VishwakarmA. Vs. State of U.P. and Another ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned AGA and also perused the record. 2. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2356 of 2003 (Vipin Kumar vYogendra) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the respondent no. 2 on receiving the information that the cheque tendered by him to the Bank had been dishonoured for want of adequate fund in the account of respondent no. 2, sent the legal notice to the applicant on 26.11.2002 by registered post, which was properly served on the applicant but respondent no. 2 did not file any complaint within the statutory period. The respondent no. 2 serve...
Jagdish Ram and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.2. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are parents in law of the deceased and the FIR has been lodged by the order of the Magistrate on an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no overt act has been assigned on their part. The applicants are in jail since 18.6.2010.3. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment and harassment and there was dowry demand and in viscera report Zinc Phosphide has been found, Learned A.G.A. has also supported the same fact.4. The applicants are parents in law of the deceased and no overt act has been assigned on their part.5. Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of...
Dr. Anit Singh, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Eight petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 24th July, 2010 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') declining permission to the petitioners to appear at the forthcoming MDS Examination.2. The said MDS Course is of three years duration and the examination is to be held after the expiry of three years.3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed before the Court the communication dated 25/27th August, 2009 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by which recognition has been granted for the Academic Session 2007-08 to the Rama Dental College, Hospital & Research Centre, Kanpur for limited seats in Prosthodontics and Conservative Dentistry but the Vice-Chancellor of the University has refused to give permission to appear at the examination on the ground that the affiliation has not been extended by the State Government fo...
Obeetee Pvt Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. In respect of two sale deeds both dated 22.2.2001 references under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were made on 26.3.2002 for determination of market value and the deficiency in stamp duty. Accordingly, two Stamp Cases No.20 of 2002 and 19 of 2002 State v. Obeetee (P) Limited came to be registered. The Collector vide two separate but identical orders dated date 30.9.2002 determined the market value of the land by applying circle rate prescribed for residential land. The said orders of the Collector have been affirmed in appeals which have been decided by a common order dated 26.10.2009.2. The above orders determining market value and deficiency in stamp duty along with appellate orders are under challenge in the present writ petitions.3. I have heard Sri R.N.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K.Rai for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.4. The parties agree for final disposal of the writ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »