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.
Sadaab. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 2 of 2010 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, P.S. Janakpuri, District Saharanpur.2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record. As per the prosecution story, the applicant was working as Munshi in the firm M/s S. S. Contractor & Supplier owned by the informant. On 10.12.2009 the applicant was deputed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Bank. The said money was misappropriated by the applicant by concocting a false story that while he was returning from the Bank after withdrawing the money, his motorcycle collided with a tree, he fell down and received injuries, and was admitted to a hospital. He claimed that during this period, somebody took the money from his possession without his (2)Knowledge.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant...
Vijai Singh. Vs.State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
Judgement1. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice Annexure 1 to the petition, issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 2 I. e. Addl. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.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. Three 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...
Manoj Kumar. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. It would appear from the record that the arrest of the petitioners was stayed by an interim order passed in this writ petition. The investigation had not been stayed. It is not known whether the investigation has been completed yet or not.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.3. In the case of Mahendra Lal Das v State of Bihar 2002 SCC (Crl) 110 it has been held by the Supreme Court that while interference by Courts at investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time.4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending any longer. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:(1) The investigation will be completed within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the Investigating Officer or any police officer of the district to whom the inves...
Yogendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Contention of the petitioner is that he was already having a load of 4 KW and applied for enhancement of load by 1KW. However, respondent no. 6 wanted illegal gratification and when petitioner did not agree with the same a fictitious inspection report was prepared about theft of electricity and on the basis of that a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. When petitioner approached this Court on the Criminal Side his arrest was stayed.2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was not committing any theft and entire proceedings have been made ex-parte without following procedures provided under Electricity Code. Petitioner has also challenged virus of Section 1(6)(b) (iv) and Section 135 (e) of the Electricity Act.3. Learned counsel who appeared for Power Corporation on the other hand argued that provisional assessment was made against which petitioner filed objection and his objection has been decided/rejected and thus petitioner has remedy by way of filing app...
Swadhesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P.and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. The applicant, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of Case Crime No.366/09, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, P.S. Tamper, district Agra, pending in the court of ACJM, 13th, Agra be quashed.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafidely intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.3. From the perusal of 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. At th...
The Director General, and Others. Vs. Indra Pal Shukla, and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. By the impugned order dated 27th January, 2010 in Original Application No. 1173 of 2004 Indra Pal Shukla vs. Union of India and others, the Central Administrative Tribunal has partly allowed the OA against the order passed by the President of India, reducing 30% of the pension of the applicant and directing recovery of Rs. 53, 194.80 from gratuity on the ground, that the order of acquittal in respect of Charge (Article 1) by the trial court has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal held in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as follows:-2. As far as the charge (article 1) referring to the charge of abatement in getting the Stock Register snatched by the outsider, we find that the order of Session Court has not been taken into account, which has recorded categorical finding in rejecting the case of the department. As far as the findings with respect to shortage of stock and loss suffered by the department to the tune of Rs. 53, 194.80 paisa i...
Ratanpal Singh. Vs. the Labour Court.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Present writ petition in question has been filed questioning the validity of the award dated 03.02.1992 passed by Labour Court Ist U.P. Meerut upholding the action of employer qua dispensation of service. Brief background of the case is that Ratan Pal Singh had been performing and discharging duties as Fitter with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 2. Petitioner has stated that he was not well as such he proceeded on leave 07.08.1979 and returned on 01.07.1981 then he acquired knowledge that his services has already been dispensed with on 31.12.1979. Petitioner raised industrial dispute and accordingly reference was made by State Government under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before Labour Court. Written statements were filed by the respective parties and to the said written statement replica was also filed and thereafter issues were framed. Thereafter on the basis of evidence adduced, Labour Court recorded finding that proceedings undertaken was in contravent...
Bhagawan Singh, and Others. Vs. State of U.P, and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 by filing his Parcha, which is being taken on record and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4, Etah in S.T. No. 225 of 2009, State v. Bhagwan Singh & others, (Case Crime No. 11 of 2009), under Sections 147, 323, 324, 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Marhara, District - Etah, whereby the discharge application of the applicant has been rejected.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the discharge application of the applicants has been rejected without considering the facts and material on record and the case diary, which shows that no offence under the charged sections has been made out against the applicants.4. Sri A. Kumar Singh has stated that the order imp...
Smt. Harjeet Kaur, and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Comp. Ltd. Gond ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is preferred against the impugned award dated 07.02.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda.2. On 28th May, 2000 at about 8:30 P.m. when deceased and his son were crossing a over-bridge of Balrampur to Gonda road, Truck No. U.P. 43A/5377 driven the Truck rashly and negligently hit the deceased consequent to which the deceased succumbed injuries and died on the spot. The driver of the the said truck ran away leaving the Truck on the spot. An F.I.R. was lodged; thereafter a claim petition was filed before the Claim Tribunal for payment of compensation on behalf of the claimant. The Tribunal framed issues with regard to the accident occurred on 28th May, 2000 at about 8:00 p.m. and with regard to the Insurance Company and driver and also the policy conditions.3. On behalf of the claimants, the witnesses Smt. Prabha Devi(PW-1), Suresh Kumar(PW-2) and Hari Ram(PW-3) were appeared whereas on ...
Ranjit Narang. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-"(A) Whether Explanation 1(i)(e) of Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax ACt, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 and has been brought into effect from 01.04.1995, can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case retrospectively since the assessment order under challenge is for the financial year 1991-92 for which the relevant assessment year is 1992-93.(B) Whether the gain from renouncement of rights option is taxable under the Income Tax Act in light of the fact that no method for computation of "cost of acquisition" of a rights option was prescribed in the Income Tax Act prior to the insertion of Section 55(2)(aa)(ii) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1994 brought into effect from 01.04.1995.(C) Whether the period of holding of a rights option can be reckoned from the dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »