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.
Smt. Neera Jassal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.N. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the Committee of Management - the Respondent No.4. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.2.2006, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being promoted as Lecturer in Home Science in Durga Bari A.B. Balika Inter College, Meerut, has been rejected on the ground that the post claimed by the petitioner has to be filled up from amongst a reserved category candidate of Schedule Caste and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted as she belongs to the general category. 3. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that there are 12 posts of Lecturer in the institution and 50% of the posts in terms of Chapter-II Regulation 5 of the U.P. Intermediate Regulation Act read with the Rules and Regulations framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act have to be filled up by way of promotion. It is submitted th...
Vikram Kothari (H.U.F.) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 28.03.2003 issued by the respondent no.2 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act, assessed to tax in the status of HUF and filed return for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring therein income of Rs. 1,80,570/-. The said return was subjected to scrutiny. The assessing authority had passed the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 26.10.1998. Thereafter, respondent no.2 issued a notice on 28.03.2003 under Section 148 of the Act with the view to re-open the proceedings and re-assess under Section 147 of the Act. In pursuance of the said notice, the return was filed on 24.04.2003. The assessing authority had supplied the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, which are as follows: "The assessee had filed a return...
Dilip Singh, Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.07.2010passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Varanasi 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. 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 ...
Arun Govil Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Heard Shri Manish Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner,the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. Petitioner who has been a member of the Indian Air Force was declared unfit on medical ground in the year 1976. Government of India formulated a scheme to provide job to Ex-Military officials which is adopted by the State Government. Under the scheme, Ex-military officials are appointed on contract basis for fixed term which could have been extended from time to time subject to suitability and good conduct but not beyond the age of 58 years. In pursuance of the scheme, the State of U.P. appointed the petitioner on the post of Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Unnao on 20.8.1979. However, the appointment was on contract basis initially for the period of one year w.e.f. the date of assumption of duties, in case had not terminated earlier, with one month's notice by the Governor or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof or by giving one month's n...
Smt. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Smt. Meena Devi for following reliefs: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo-warranto commanding and directing the respondent No.5 to vacate the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Vishambharpur, Parana Dehma, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur forthwith. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the charge of Gram Pradhan of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Vishambharpur, Parana Dehma, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur to the petitioner by declaring her as elected Gram Pradhan and treat her duly elected. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to hold an inquiry and take appropriate action in regard to corruption and financial irregularities by respondent No.5. iv) Issue or pass any other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) Award cost ...
Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P.Through Secy. Home Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the the impugned orders dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure-3) and 10.02.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by O.P. Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. 3. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner in the month of January, 1989 applied for an arms licence of D.B.B.L. Gun after completing all the necessary formalities as required for the said purpose to the Licencing Authority/District Magistrate, Gonda, thereafter the necessary reports etc. were called by the said authority. 4. As no heed has been paid in the matter in question, so the petitioner for redressal of his grievances approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5360 (MS) of 2004 Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, disposed of vide order and judgment dated 06.12.2004 ...
Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Union
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Indian Oxygen Ltd., Fazalganj, Kanpur against an order, levying damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1952'), dated 03rd October, 1994. 2. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: 3. A show cause notice under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952 was issued to the employers on 09th February, 1994 calling upon them to state as to why necessary contributions towards provident fund, family pension fund, employees' deposit linked insurance fund, administrative charges on employees' provident fund, administrative charges/inspection charges on employees' deposit linked insurance were not deposited within 15 days of the close of each month, as required by law, for the period March, 1973 to May, 1990 in respect of ad hoc D.A. Paid to employers. 4. Although employers took time to submit reply but in fact they did not submit any explanat...
Shri M.P. Gupta Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. We have heard Shri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri C.B. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri D.P. Bahadur appears for the Syndicate Bank and other respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Asstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relations Cell, Zonal Office, Lucknow awarding him punishment of dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Regulation 4 (J) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The order has been passed for breach of Regulation No.3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of S.B.O.E. (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. It further directs that the suspension period of the petitioner shall not be treated as on duty for any purpose and he shall not be eligible for any back wages except subsistence allowance. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the General manager (P), th...
Aditya Kumar Chaukar. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no.37 of 2008, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, pending before the Special Judge, (Gangsters Act), Bulandshahar.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malaise intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the...
Sankatha Prasad Tiwari. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.03.2010 filed in case crime no. 07 of 2010 under section 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute of money transaction exists between the opposite party no. 2 and relative of the applicant regarding which the applicant has no concern whatsoever, but he has been falsely implicated to put pressure, which is bad in law. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the matter will be compromised between the parties. 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 applicant. 4. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »