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.
Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 114 of 2010 (Amit Kumar v State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 967 of 2009, under sections 302/307 IPC, P.S. Barnahal, District Mainpuri 3. It is alleged that on 14.11.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. the revisionist killed his own sister (Seema) only due to the reason that she has herself solemnized marriage with one Lattha alias Upendra Singh. 3. The Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri has already declared the revisionist as juvenile but refused to release him on bail vide its order dated 12.05.2010 on the ground that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into the association with known criminals and also expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and as such the ends of justice would be defeated. 4. The appeal filed filed by...
Sri Ram Babu Jaiswal and Another Vs. Additional District Judge, Court ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. eard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioners are the tenants of the shop situated in mid western portion of house no.96/85, Nakhas Khona, Allahabad. 3. SCC Suit No. 49 of 2004 was filed by the landlord respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Allahahad for ejectment of the petitioners from the shop in dispute and for payment of arrears of rent and damages. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statements denying the plaint allegations. Since, according to the landlords the erstwhile tenant Sri Raja Ram and after his death his legal heirs i.e. the petitioners had not deposited the arrears of rent with effect from June,1990 on the first date of hearing, an application paper no.29-C was moved for striking off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. The application was objected upon by filing objection paper no. 32-C interalia, that respondent no.5 namely, Smt. Madhuri Jaiswal wife of Sri Shiv Bala and daughter...
Jagannath Prasad Gaur and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. The petitioners, who are Constables and Head Constables in the U.P. Police, have sought the quashing of the order dated 26th April, 2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, Uttar Pradesh for transfer of the Head Constables Civil Police (Special Category) and Constables, Civil Police pursuant to the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board on 26th April, 2010. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the Government Order dated 19th February, 2010 as also Clause 5 of the general transfer policy dated 21st April, 2010 issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government. 2. The Police Establishment Board took the decision in view of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 which provides that Head Constables and Constables should not be posted in their home district or in districts adjoining their home district. The Government Order dated 19th February, 2010 exempts the implementation of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 for su...
Smt. Maya Rastogi Vs. Commissioner, Income Tax and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. The main question involved in these writ petitions is, should the initiation for the assessment of escaped income--on the basis of capital gains due to acquisition of petitioner's land--be nipped in the bud at the threshold? THE FACTS Relating to acquisition of land 2. The petitioner's 27,225 square yards of land was acquired by the Meerut Development Authority (the MDA) under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1987. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut (the SLAO) made an award on 22.2.1990. He awarded Rs. 50 per square yard. In pursuance of the award, the petitioner received Rs. 21,26,757/- as compensation on 30.6.1990. 4. The petitioner filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the district court for enhancement of compensation. The case was referred and the reference was allowed on 11.5.1992. The IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Meerut (the ADJ) enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 240/- per square yard. 5. The MDA f...
Pushpa Verma and Others (U.A. 227) Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Km. Deep Shikha, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 17.04.2008 one Sri Ashok Kumar Verma was coming back to his home at about 5 p.m., when he reached near Kamakhya Petrol Pump, , P.S. Taru, District Faizabad a Bolero DI jeep No. U.P. 58-B/6070 driven rashly and negligently rammed into the bicycle of Sri Ashok Kumar Verma causing severe injuries to him and he was admitted into the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident. 3. In view of the abovesaid facts, a claim petition has been filed by the claimants (namely Smt. Pushpa Verma wife of the deceased, Alok Verma and Atul Verma, minor sons of the deceased and Sadhu Verma father of the deceased) under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act registered as Claim Petition No. 205 of 2008 Pushpa Verma and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another before the Tribunal. 4. In the...
Gore Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2010 (Gore Lal v State of U.P.) whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist's appeal and refused to release him on bail. 3. It appears that the revisionist has already been declared as juvenile and there is no dispute to this extent. 4. The revisionist Gore Lal is involved in Case No. 142 of 2006 (State v Jainav & others) arising out of Crime No. 3 of 2004, under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3(1)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Mahuli, District Kabir Nagar. He moved an application for bail but the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application. The appeal filed by the revisionist was also dismissed by the learned Session Judge. 5. The Session Judge found that the victim...
Sujeet Kumar and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Once again a family feud between husband Sujeet Kumar(A1) ,his parents and other relatives on the one side and his wife Smt. Pratibha Roy(Smt. Pratibha Rai), respondent No.2(R2)on the other has vented in launching of a prosecution against the entire husband's family consisting of husband Sujeet Kumar(A1),his parents Vishwanath Rai (A-2) and Smt. Umda Devi (A-3),younger brother Pradeep Rai(A-4), sister Puneeta (A-5) and uncle-in-law Ramnath Rai (A-6) by R2 through Complaint Case No.275 of 2009, Smt. Pratibha Rai v. Sujeet Kumar and others, under Section 406 IPC P.S. Indirapuram, district Ghaziabad before ACJM II. By invoking inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.(in short Code), through instant application accused applicants have sought quashing of proceedings of said trial with additional prayer for stay of further proceedings in the court below meanwhile. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details and stated briefly, complainant's allegations in her complaint registered as case No.320 of 20...
Smt. Parvati Devi and Others Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 04.09.2010 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, Respondent no. 1 in P.A. Execution Case No. 12 of 2009: Piyush Kumar vs. Parvati and others, appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which Paper no. 49-Ga has been rejected as well as for issuance of a direction restraining the respondent no. 1 from enforcing the order dated 28.10.2006 releasing the accommodation in question and also to restrain it from commanding forcible eviction of the petitioner from the building in question. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2, Piyush Kumar-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 02 of 2001 for release of the shop in dispute for his son Sudesh Kumar. The petitioner is alleged to be tenant of ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sajjan and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. We have heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company at length on 13.5.2010 at the time of admission. This Appeal can be disposed of at this stage finally without issuing notices to the respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by the appellant - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 22.1.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur in MACP No.213 of 2009. 3. In brief, the facts are that on 2.7.2009, the deceased Rampal, father of claimant-respondent nos.1 & 2, was going from Chaurhgra G.T. Road to Fatehpur by Magic Loader No.UP-77N - 3096. He was carrying with him 60 kilograms fish to sell at Fatehpur. On the way, in front of Rewari Plant, within the circle of P.S. Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur, the driver of the vehicle No. UP-77N - 3096 was dri...
Mohd. Sharif Vs. Abdul Salam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Landlord -Abdul Salam, respondent in this petition, filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of a portion of house no. 101/67, Colonelganj, Kanpur, at the ground floor consisting of one room, common latrine and bathroom, inter alia on the ground that his family consists of nine members and they are living in a portion comprising of one room, one very small room, varandah, kothari on the first floor and one temporary tinshed on second floor; that his sons are doing work of sewing belts and embroidery on the ground floor which is the only source of their livelihood; that his children have grown up and their marriage is due but the accommodation with the landlord is too inadequate and insufficient for residential purpose to accommodate his entire family and that he or any member of his family does not own or possess any other house. 3. The aforesaid release application was registered a...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »