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.
Smt. Geeta Goel. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner is challenging to the order dated 18.2.09 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mathura, dated 18.2.09 and the revisional order dated 6.11.09 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra division Agra, whereby in respect of instrument of sale market value of the land has been determined under Section 47-A (3) of the Act.2. The petitioner by the aforesaid sale deed purchased 1,210 sq. meters of land which is said to be part of Khasara no.42. The said land was described as an agricultural land in the sale deed and as per circle rate of agricultural land stamp duty was paid. The authorities by following the comparable sale method on the basis of two others earlier sale deeds determined the market rate of the land to be Rs.1400 sq. meters.3. Disputing the above determination of the market rate, Sri Ram Jee Sexena, learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. First the land in dispute is agricultural land and its market value cannot be ...
Shyama Devi, and Another. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Etowah in criminal revision no. 290 of 2007 (Shyama Devi v. State of U.P.) where by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision filed on behalf of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Its Etowah in case crime no. 160 of 2005 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.2. It appears that in the aforesaid case the investigating officer submitted a final report on the ground that no case was made out. The respondent no.2 Smt. Saroj, who is the complainant, moved a protest petition against the final report. The learned Magistrate considered the protest petition report and perused the entire case diary and arrived at the conclusion that the final report was not correct and there were sufficient materials on record to take cognizance of the offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he ac...
Smt.Chandra Prabah. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint No. 138 of 1992, under Sections 159/162 Companies Act, pending before learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur.3. Vide order dated 20.12.1994, this Court had passed an interim order whereby notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. were granted time to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date, in the present case.4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Shri Harish Kumar Gupta, the Managing Director of the Company namely, Hotel Sweta Private Limited, Dehradun was the Principal Officer of the Company who used to manage and look after the affairs of the company and not the applicant, who was one of the Director. Reference in this regard, has been drawn to the complaint, copy of which, ...
Rajendra MishrA. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that case is based on circumstantial evidence and suspicion has been shown against the applicant and cause of death could not be ascertained and Viscera has been preserved and it has come in the statement of witness Deshvir Chaudhary that the deceased himself was habitual of consuming liquor and other drugs. It is further contended that the extra judicial confession has been recorded after one year from the date of alleged occurrence and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 15.6.2010. 3. Learned A.G.A. has contended that the deceased had gone with the applicant and thereafter his dead body was found and he made extra judicial confession before the witness. 4. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There was no motive on the part of the applicant. Extra judicial confession alleged to h...
Drigpal. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 6.3.2010 issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 2 i. e. Addl. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.2. From a perusal of the notice, it would transpire that the notice has been issued listing charges firstly that he is a Goonda and has committed an offence defined under Chapters 16,17 and 22 I.P.C. secondly, the charge against the petitioner is that either no one dares to lodge the F.I.R. or give the evidence against him. Two cases have been cited to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner. On the basis of alleged criminal history as embodied in the notice, the action was initiated under section (3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 spelling out the ground that the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that that such person is e...
Abzal Ahmad. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2003 whereby the application 313-kha filed on behalf of the revisionist Abzal Ahmad for modification / alteration of charge was rejected.2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.3. Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that charge under section 308 I.P.C. was framed by the trial court on the ground that accused persons caused injuries to Matloob, Shabnam and the deceased Abdul Waheed. It was contended that Abdul Waheed died as a result of injuries sustained by him in this incident and, therefore, charge under section 304/149 I.P.C. was framed against all the accused and separate charge under section 308/149 I.P.C. could not be framed in respect of the injuries caused to Abdul Waheed. It was further conte...
Jai Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ashish Nigam, Advocate for respondent-Bank.1. 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.2. 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.3. 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 fo...
M/S Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The assessee/revisionist is doing business of manufacturing agricultural implements. It is recognised by the Khadi Gramodyog Board and is also having a recognition certification for the purchase of raw material on concessional rate against Form 3-B.2. An order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Authority on 18.2.1999 for the assessment year 1997-98 wherein no tax liability was determined. However, proceedings under Section 10B of the Act for revising the said order were drawn and by an order dated 31.3.2000 the matter was remanded to the assessing authority. The said order of remand was affirmed by the tribunal against which the present revision has been preferred.I have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the assessment order was passed on the basis of the survey dated 4.8.1998 and no tax liability was imposed upon the revisionist. Th...
Har Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA.1. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that general role of firing has been assigned to all the accused persons.2. He next contended that the injured in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that the gun shot fired at him by the applicant, missed the aim. He in his statement has not attributed the fire arm wound received by him to the applicant.3. He next contended that the co accused Moti, Ram Karan and Tulsi have been enlarged on bail by the Court of Sessions. He lastly contended that that the applicant is in jail since 3.10.2009.4. The prayer for bail has been opposed by learned AGA on the ground that the applicant has a long criminal history of 28 cases.5. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply submitted that in all the 28 other cases in which he is involved, either he has been acquitted or enlarged on bail.6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the a...
Sanjeev Kumar. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 7.4.2010 issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 2 i. e. Addl. District Magistrate, Auraiya.2. From a perusal of the notice, it would transpire that the notice has been issued listing charges firstly that he is a Goonda and has committed an offence defined under Chapters 16,17 and 22 I.P.C. secondly, the charge against the petitioner is that either no one dares to lodge the F.I.R. or give the evidence against him. Two cases have been cited to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner. On the basis of alleged criminal history as embodied in the notice, the action was initiated under section (3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 spelling out the ground that the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that that such person is engaged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »