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.
ichchharam. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by Special Judge, D.A.A. Act, Banda, whereby the application of the applicants filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no power to pass the ...
Shyam Babu. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, whereby the application of the applicant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no power to pass th...
Sarvjeet. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.07.2010passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasiya, Kushinagar, whereby the application of the applicant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. 2. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no pow...
Chiddu at Wahid Khan and (4) ors.Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. This is an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order dated 29.11.1996 passed by the learned Magistrate as contained in Annexure-4 and the order dated 21.01.2004 passed by learned Revisional Court as contained in Annexure-5 and also every proceedings arising out of these orders. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2, although a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 is available on the record and no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners against the same. 3. Matter was listed for hearing after publication of the notice in the cause list dated 28.08.2010 classified as in the list of cases likely to be infructuous. Name of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri Awdhesh Kumar is printed in the list, but as earlier said, on one appeared on his behalf. 4. Undisputed facts are that on 11.10.1993 in front of the house...
Ms. Star Paper Mills Ltd Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. 2. M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd - the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 has no application in respect of commercial land, and to set aside judgement dated 31.8.1996 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur to the extent that the same declares 1,24,007.062 sq.mtr of land held by the petitioner as excess vacant land. The Company has also prayed for directions, not to interfere in their peaceful use and occupation of the land. 3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999) w.e.f. 22.03.1999. Section 3 of the Repealing Act provides as follows: 3. Savings (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect - (a) the...
Ram Daras Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ohters
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. The petitioner has been granted promotion as Lecturer in Civics in an Intermediate College governed by The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act 1982 and The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 framed thereunder. The Rule of Promotion is Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules which is quoted below: "Rule 14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.- (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day on the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Notes- For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognized institution shall be counted for eligibility, u...
Smt. Rani Verma Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 13.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 2008 arising out of Session Trial No. 527 of 2008, (Case Crime No. 715 of 206) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Etah, District Etah. 2. A sessions trial was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Etah and 29.11.2006 was a date fixed for hearing in that case. On that date both the parties were present in the court campus. At about 12.30 P.M. certain persons entered the court compound in two motor cars. They were armed with firearms. They allegedly belonged to the party of the accused of the sessions trial, reference whereof has been given above. The armed persons had started indiscriminate firing in the court compound upon their adversaries. As a consequence, two persons had died in the court compound. An F.I.R. was lodged t...
Smt. Neeraj Sharma Vs. Sri R.S. Yadav, Constable, and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. The 3 orders under challenge in this petition relate to the removal of the petitioner from service from the post of a Lady Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. 2. The petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 28.6.2006 and the appeal filed by her met the same fate on 12.9.2006. The revision preferred by her to the Inspector General of C.I.S.F. has been dismissed on 20.12.2006. Hence this petition. 3. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on account of an incident which is alleged to have taken place on New Years Day of the year 2006 at about 5.30 P.M. at a public place in Sendha Bazar, Near Mukesh General Store, Panki, District - Kanpur. The allegation as indicated in the charge reproduced in the impugned order of removal is to the effect that the petitioner caught hold of the collar of Head-constable R.S. Yadav and assaulted him with her footwear. It is also alleged that she was accompanied by a civilian namely Sri Narendra, wh...
Pradeshiya Jan Jati Vikas Manch U.P. and Others. Vs. State of Up and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. The question in this case turns on, 'whether the persons shifted from the list of notified Scheduled Castes to the notified list of Scheduled Tribes, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 10/2003), under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, can be deprived of their constitutional rights under Article 243-D, of proportional representation in Panchayat elections, on the ground, that their numbers for giving them representation for reservation in the seats of Chairpersons of village panchayats is not available with the State Government, from the Census 2001 figures; and whether any other empirical data can be relied upon to fulfil the constitutional mandate.' 2. We have heard Shri L.P. Singh; Shri P.K. Kashyap and Shri Vivek Saran for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Y.S. Bohra and Dr. Y.S. Srivastava for the respondents. 3. 'Pradeshiya Jan Jati Vikas Manch' a social service organiz...
Anoop Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist No1 informed that revisionist No.1 has died. His wife has been served notice but none is present on her behalf. 3. It appears that in S.T. No.61/95 (State v. Anoop Singh and others), the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut has summoned the revisionist for trial under sections 147, 302 and 201 I.P.C. The summoning order has been passed under section 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionist No.1 Anoop Singh and revisionist No.3 Lokendra are alleged to have died. 4. It may not be out of context to mention that at the stage of charge, learned Additional Sessions Judge found no sufficient material and, accordingly, discharged the revisionist.s After the discharge of the revisionists, the trial court proceeded against co-accused Dharamveer. Against whom, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1, Ramesh, was that...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »