Allahabad Court September 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.
Maya Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the order which, according to him, the learned Single Judge did not decide. According to the appellant, the controversy involved in the writ petition was cancellation of the first promotional pay scale and reduction to a lower pay scale. This issue, it is submitted, has not been decided. Apart from that, it is submitted that the impugned order cancelling the first promotional pay scale was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 2. We may now refer to some facts relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the matter. The appellant was appointed as Foreman in the pay scale of Rs.400-750, which was subsequently revised to Rs.1600-2600 in the year 1986 and thereafter to Rs.5000-8000 in the year 1996. The appellant, on 14.07.1997 was granted the benefit of one increment after 10 years in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2600. 3. There are no promotional posts in the Department in which the appellant is serving, though th...
Jawahar Lal Agarwal Vs. Smt. Vinod Bhandari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the orders dated 23.12.2008 passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 1/74/2007 and order date 31.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in P.A. Case No. 31 of 2001: Smt. Vinod Bhandari vs. Madan Lal Agarwal (since deceased). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of premises no. 40/4 Parade Kanpur Nagar. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) which was registered as Rent Case No. 31 of 2001 of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting (Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereafter referred to as 'Act' for release of the accommodation in dispute for her need. The release application was contested by father of the petitioner Madan Lal Agarwal by filing written statement to inter alia that he was tenant of the premises in dispute...
Subedar Vs. Nawab Singh and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. This is plaintiff's writ petition who instituted Suit No. 126 of 2001 for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents to raise any construction over the land in dispute and not to interfere in his peaceful possession. 2. The said suit is still pending. On 17th July, 2006, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint on the allegations that in the year 2002, the defendants had raised a wall on the disputed land, which was got demolished by the District Magistrate and again in the year 2005, they have raised the said wall and thus obstructed the plaintiff's passage. The said application for amendment of the plaint was rejected vide order dated 22nd November, 2006 which has been confirmed in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2007 passed by the revisional court, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. The two courts below have rejected th...
Ms Zoom Movers Proprietary Thru Manish Ku. Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. Heard Mr. R.N. Shukla for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA, the matter is being finally disposed of. 3. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in the crime no. 370/2009, under sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC, police station R.C. Mission, district Shahjahanpur, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate released the vehicle no. UP-32/ATC-1249 in favour of the petitioner M/S Zoom Movers Proprietary on certain conditions and one of the conditions, which has been impugned in this petition, was that the registered owner of the vehicle shall not transfer the vehicle and keep the same in the safe custody and produce whenever required by the courts. This condition, according to the petitioner, was stringent and unwarranted in law, therefore, liable to be struck down. 4...
Naushad @ Shanu and ors. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 332 of 2010 under Section 307, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Najeebabad District Bijnor pending in the court of A.C.J.M. II, Bijnor as well as summoning order dated 5.4.2010. 2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 contentions.3. 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be ...
Shivdhesar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Plaintiff appellant was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was involved in a criminal case and was arrested and released on bail. He was put under suspension. He proceeded on leave from 14.5.1990 to 12.6.1990 with due permission granted on 8.5.1990. He applied for extension of leave but the extension was not granted. He absented from duty or over stayed on leave and on the said ground his services were terminated w.e.f. 5.6.1992. 2. The plaintiff appellant instituted Original Suit No.138 of 1993 for declaring the order of termination as illegal, null and void. The suit was filed without serving notice under Section 80 CPC upon the Central Government ie., the Union of India, one of the defendants to the suit. 3. The suit was contested on merits and on certain technical pleas vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the court; the suit being barred by Central Administrative Tribunal Act and for want of notice under Section 80 CPC; and that Union of India was not properly arrayed...
Constable Ex-174 T.P. Anand Kishore Vs. the State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a dismissed Constable of the U.P. Police Service. He has come up against the order of dismissal dated 31st July, 2006 as affirmed by the appellate and revisional orders dated 04.09.2006 and 31.10.2006 respectively. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to which a reply has been filed by the petitioner and an additional supplementary affidavit has been filed on 17.05.2010 after service on the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 4. Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is perverse, inasmuch as, it does not take notice of the documents, which were on record in relation to the defence set up by the petitioner and which had been clearly pointed out by the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings through a written document. 5. The focus and the challenge, therefore, is on the finding re...
Major S.N.Tripathi ( as Per Electoral Roll) Vs. the Election Commissio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard Major S. N. Tripathi, the petitioner who appeared in person and Sri I. B. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner preferred this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter known as R.P. Act) challenging the validity of the election of the opposite party no. 3/returned candidate. The petitioner has prayed that the election of the elected candidate i.e. opposite party no. 3 be declared as void under the provisions of Section 98 (b) of the R.P. Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present election petition mainly on the following grounds: i. This election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of this R.P. Act and hence it is void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of this R.P. Act. ii. The opposite party no. 3 has been elected as a delegate/agent of an association or a body of persons and such a person is not qualified to be chosen to fil...
Dr. (Smt) Shobha Gupta Vs. Union of India Through Secy. Ministry of Pe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no. 2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had issued an advertisement for allotment of an agency, which is known as Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak (RGGLV) in October, 2009 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. One of the conditions is that the person seeking agency should own a suitable land at advertised location for LPG godown & showroom. 3. The word 'own' has been defined to mean as clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant / family member of the 'Family Unit'. 'Family Unit' has been defined to include a married applicant which shall consist of the applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). 'Family Unit' of an unmarried applicant shall consist of applicant, applicant's parents and applicant's unmarried brother(s) / sister(s). 4. The petitioner herein applied for the said agency. Insofar as the requirement of land as per the advertisement is concerned, she has re...
Dhruv Singh Yadav Vs. Director General Central Industrial Security For ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri A.N. Rai appears for the respondents. 2. In this intra court appeal, the petitioner-appellant enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force as a constable on 26.8.1988 and discharged on 26.6.1995 under Rule 38 of the CCS Rules, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2008 by which he has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was discharged after he was examined and verified by the panel of Doctors and was found to be suffering from 'schizophrenia', which prevented him to carry arm and to perform onerous duties of para military force. 3. Learned Single Judge considered his disability in the light of the representation dated 25.6.1997 and for giving him benefit of Section 47 Protection of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as PWD Act). He found that in view of notification...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »