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.
Shamsher. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. These two writ petitions raising common question of law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these writ petitions need to be noted. The petitioner in writ petition No. 40262 of 2010 was elected as Senior Up-Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat, Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh. A no confidence motion against Adhyaksha of the Kshetra Panchayat was passed on 29.11.2007. The amendments were made in the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) on 10.12.2007. Smt. Shanti Devi, the Pramukh challenged the no confidence motion as well as amendments made in the Act by U.P. Act No. 44 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2007') before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was decided along with writ petition No. 451 (MB) of 2008 Mamta Kanaujia v. State of U.P. and others on 1.3.2009, dismissing all the writ petitions. An order was passed on 25.6.2010 by the prescribed auth...
Molhey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Perused the F.I.R., medical report and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that according to medical report no definite opinion regarding rape could be given and the age of prosecutrix according to the radiological report was about 16-17 years. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she went with accused applicant to Lucknow. It is also stated that the applicant married the prosecutrix as averred in para 7 of the bail application. It is also stated that there could be variation of two years on either side in age and since the benefit is given to the accused, as such, it could be said that the prosecutrix was major and was a consenting party. Learned counsel also submits that the accused applicant is in jail ...
Rameshwar Bux Singh Vs. Kashi Ratneshwar Dayal Tiwari and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. This first appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2002 passed by learned M.A.C.T./Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.67 of 1993 (Kashi Ratneshwar Dayal Tiwari and others v. Sudama Lal Sonkar and others), wherein the claim petition has been allowed and the appellant Rameshwar Bux Singh, respondents Sudama Lal Sonkar owner and Dinesh Sonkar driver of the vehicle have been held liable jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,98,000/- as compensation, however, respondent/opposite parties City Bank and Oriental Insurance Company have been absolved of their liabilities. 2. A perusal of the record goes to show that a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was moved by respondents/petitioners Kashi Ratneshwar Dayal Tiwari and four others claiming themselves to be dependents and legal heirs of deceased Praksh Chandra Tiwari aged about 20 years, for compensation with regard to his death in the accident in question, with this ...
Raj Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri O.P. Srivastava, Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Dr. L.P. Misra for private respondent no. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they would not like to file counter affidavit and that since only legal question is involved, the matter may be finally heard and decided. 3. An interim order is continuing in the present case. 4. The elections of Kshettra Panchayat, Motigarpur, District Sultanpur were held on 27.2.06. In this election one Smt. Pushpa wife of Sri Vijai Pal was selected as Pramukh and the petitioner was elected as Senior Up-Pramukh. The petitioner was administered oath of office of Up-Pramukh on 18.3.06. 5. On the date of election, U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) as amended from time to time, was in force but later on, by means of U.P. Act No. 44 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), the afores...
Sri Narayan Alias DhodhA. Vs. District Judge Chandauli, and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed a Suit No.3 of 2007 against the defendants for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Chandauli, relating to the plot no.155 area 14 decimal. The defendant has filed a Suit No.337 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandauli, relating to the very same plot. A transfer application appears to have moved by the Respondents No.2 to 4 before the District Judge, Chandauli, under Section 24 C.P.C. for transferring the suit filed by the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) on the ground that the controversy involved in both the suits i.e. the Suit No.3 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and Suit No.337 of 2006 filed by the respondents are the same and relates to the very same plot. The District Judge, Chandauli, has allowed the transfer application and has directed that the suit pending in the Court of Civil J...
Munnu Singh, and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2422 of 2006(State v Munnu Singh & others) under sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.3. It may be mentioned at the outset, that the instant petition was filed by five applicants. The petition filed on behalf of the husband and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix was dismissed on 05.06.2006 and the present petition is only on behalf of the younger brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix namely; Mukesh, Dinesh and Ajay.4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant nos, 3, 4 and 5 ( Mukesh, Dinesh and Ajay respectively) are the younge...
Mohan. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri RK Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not in the FIR and thereafter allegation has been made against Nirdosh and two other co-accused and Police arrested them. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of the applicant. The only evidence against the applicant is statement of witness Ravindra who stated that applicant and two other were coming out of Khandahar hurriedly and except this there is nothing against the applicant to connect with the murder of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the applicant was involved in committing the murder of the deceased and there is last seen evidence against him. He along with other co-accused attempted to rape the deceased and committed murder. 4. Learned A.G.A. supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the...
Smt.Ram Kali, and Others. Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List revised. None appears to press the petition on behalf of the applicants. Learned AGA is present on behalf of the State-respondent. 2. This Court vide order dated 09.03.1994 has passed the interim order and has issued notices, but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1696 of 1993 under section 406 IPC pending in the Court of IV A.C.J.M., Agra. 4. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents and statements have been appended in support of his contention. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which ca...
Ram Saran, and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List revised. None appears to press the present 482 petition on behalf of the applicants. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State-respondent.2. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Vedmani Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2, is on record, which was served upon the applicants on 22.7.2009. However, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed till date.3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no.1443 of 1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur.4. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents andstatements have been appended in support of his contention. As the applicant nos.2, 3 & 4 are ladies, therefore, in the interest of justice their bail application is considered on the sa...
Govind Gopal Pandey. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. and perused the material on record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is also taken on record. The applicant Govind Gopal Pandey through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court withthe prayer to quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1125 of 2009 M/sPrem Automobiles v. M/s Puneet Road Lines and other under Section 138N.I. Act pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar. Vide order dated 17.07.2009, applicant has been summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate for the aforesaid offence.2. Allegations against the applicant are that he had given a cheque bearing cheque no. 836650 on 30.09.2008 to a tune of Rs. 1,51,438/- of State Bank of Indore, Gumti No. 5 Branch Kanpur Nagar to respondent no. 2. The said cheque was deposited in the bank for encashment but the same bounced for the reason that there was insufficient fund in the account of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »