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.
Mahesh Kumar Singh @ M.K. Singh. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mahesh Kumar Singh alias M. K. Singh, son of Kalika Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 414 of 2007, under Sections- 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I. P. C., Police Station-Cantt. District-Varanasi for being enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that although the applicant is the Secretary of the State Bank Employees Salary Owners Society, no allegation of cheating or breach of trust or forging any document has been made against him in the first information report. It has next been contended that after the first information report had been lodged, the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., Varanasi had conducted an enquiry in the matter and submitted a report on 29.1.2007 in which, he did not find any complicity of the applicant as a participant ...
Manoj Kumar. Vs. State.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 677 of 2009 under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Civil Line District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M., court no. 8, Aligarh. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no amount was due to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 and no cheque was ever give by the applicant to the opposite party no.2, therefore, initiation of proceedings under the charged section is bad in law. It is further contended that no notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act was served upon the applicant, hence the complaint is bad in law. It is next contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his c...
Bhola @ Mata Charan. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail order dated 25.3.2009 granted by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, District Bhadohi in Case Crime No.21 of 1992, under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC, P.S. Gyanpur, District Bhadohi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was beneficiary by transfer of the land belonging to the informant and by impersonance he get the sale deed executed and registered. The applicant filed application before the High Court but he could not get relief. However, he was absconding for about 17 years in spite of that court below committed error in granting bail merely on the ground that accused opposite party no.2 was aged about 65 years. However, age of the opposite party no.3 was not considered. No proof regarding the age was filed hence bail of the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for ...
Amrit Lal, and Another. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at case crime No.4 of 2010 under sections 498-A and 323 IPC and 3/4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kaushambi. 3. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties. 4. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of ...
Subhash Chandra Tiwari, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `the Code') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th November 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby and whereunder the order dated 29th May 2003 passed by the learned Upper District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, refusing to summon the appellants herein as accused, was set aside.3. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the 1st respondent alleging that his wife was attacked by nine persons including the five appellants herein. His mother was also assaulted. When his father rushed to their rescue, he was also surrounded by them and was assaulted as a result whereof, he expired. Upon investigation, a final form was submitted in favour of the appellants. A charge-sheet was filed only against four persons, viz., Kishori, Jagdish, Sarjit and Sheo.4. Indisputably, a counter cas...
Rajendra Asthana and anr. Vs. State of U .P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned A.G.A. for opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.2. Notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. By means of this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet bearing charge sheet no. 9 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2010, under sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (X) SC/ST, Act, police station-Hasanganj, District-Unnao. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the petitioners have been roped in this case with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment due to enmity. From the perusal of material on record at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under sections 482 Cr.P.C.3. At this stage only a p...
Smt. Husan Ara Begum. Vs. Chief Manager State Bank of India, and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-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...
Raj Kumar. Vs. State of U.P. and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nripendra Mishra, Advocate for respondent-Bank.It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not claiming any benefit under the Debt Waiver Relief Scheme, 2008, and whatever amount is sought to be recovered, qua the same the petitioner is ready to the same along with interest provided instalment facility is extended. Learned counsel for the Bank states that the anxiety of the Bank is that the amount should be recovered back.Admittedly petitioner took loan from the respondent- Bank concern, out of which petitioner has not paid substantial amount. Petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit whole of the amount in easy installment.At this stage without challenging correctness of amount sought to be recovered a prayer has been made that if amount sought to be recovered is permitted to be deposited in easy instalments deposit of entire amount can be made. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the followi...
Tinku, and Others. Vs. State of U.P., and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide Case Crime No. 541 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Katghar district Moradabad.2. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, out of which a sum of Rs.8000/- shall be payable to the res...
Smt. Premwati Agarwal Prem Kumari. Vs. Mathura Prasad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 6.3.2009 and 19.5.2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the courts below.2. It appears that the respondent landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the disputed shop where the petitioner was a tenant at Rs.200/- per month on the ground that he has retired from service and he wants to engage himself in business of artificial jewelery and general merchant. The petitioner contested the suit inter alia with the allegation that rate of rent is only Rs.85/- a month and the landlord having retired did not require the disputed shop. After the parties had led their evidence, the release application has been allowed by both the courts below holding that the landlord had bonafide and genuine need of the disputed shop and issue of comparative hardship was also in his favour.3. The only point urged on behalf of the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »