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.
Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority Vs. Ajay Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. These First Appeals have been directed against common judgment/award dated 29.4.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. No.169 of 1992 (Ajai Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and L. A.R. No.168 of 1992 (Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and others), whereby the references have been allowed and market rate of the land acquired has been determined at Rs.350/ per sq. yard. 2. Earlier these appeals were decided by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2004; which is reproduced below: ?Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the judgment and order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.386 of 1992, this appeal is allowed in the terms and conditions as given in the above judgment. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside.? 3. A perusal of record goes to show that the Division Bench in First Appeal No.386 of 1992 held as under: ?Heard learned counsel for the parties. This First Appeal has been fil...
Ms. Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the assessment order dated 28.11.2008 passed for the assessment year 2005-06 raising a dispute that the Inverter and UPSS (uninterrupted power supply system) have been wrongly assessed to tax at the rate of 10% treating them as unclassified items, while the same were liable to tax at the rate of 4% under Notification No. KA-NI.-2-5746/XI-9(239)/96-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-(30)-2002, dated 13.12.2002 being electronic components and power supply devices. 2. Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Inverter and UPSS are the electronic components and being power supply devices, liable to tax at the rate of 4% under the notification dated 13.12.2002. He further submitted that by the circular dated 2.9.2000 the Deputy Commissioner (Legal...
Ram Avtar and Others Vs. State of Up and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 26.4.203 (ANNEXURE-1) under section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyum 1965 read with section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 published in U.P. Gazette on 17.5.2003 and in local newspapers on 17.5.2003, 24.5.2003 & 21.5.2003, order of sanction dated 3.8.2005 (ANNEXURE-2) issued by State Government under section 31 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyum 1965, notification dated 16.9.2005 (ANNEXURE-3) issued under section 32 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyum 1965 published in U.P. Gazette dated 19.11.2005, corrigendum dated 5.10.2006 (ANNEXURE-4), order dated 7.6.2007 (ANNEXURE-5) of Government under section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the notification dated 7.6.2007 (ANNEXURE-6) issued by State Government under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the Adhikar Patras dated 5.4.2008 (ANNEXURE-7 & ANNEXURE-8); ii. issue a wr...
Smt. Shahjahan Begum Vs. Nigar Kauser
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2006 passed in favour of the respondent whereby the S.C.C. suit no. 188 of 2005 was decreed ex parte. The said application of the petitioner was registered as Misc. Case No. 48/74/2006 Smt. Shahjahan Begum v. Smt. Nigar Kauser. Before filing the said application the petitioner appears to have presented a tender for an amount of Rs. 12,254 in compliance of the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act i.e. on the same date when the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. An application was moved stating that the petitioner has deposited the tender on 18th August, 2006 which may be accepted towards compliance of Section 17 of the Act. The court below ...
Om Narayan Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. The present writ petition raises a question of general importance, which can be formulated as under: "Whether a Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, who has been convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine and also having been convicted under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. wherein he has been awarded ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, can be allowed to continue on his post of Block Pramukh, on being released on bail after conviction or he incurs a disqualification under Section 13 of Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, which would debar him to continue as such, unless either exonerated/acquitted of the aforesaid charges in appeal, or the disqualification ceases after the prescribed period." 2. In the elections held for Kshettra Panchayat, Jagdishpur, the petitioner was elected as a member and the opposite party no. 7 after being elected as 'member', was e...
Rahul Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions, therefore they are being heard and decided by common order. 2. By means of present bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, whereby abruptly the respondents without any communication or reasons have stopped the supply of coal to the petitioners, as per assertions made in the writ petitions. 3. The writ petition no.49950 of 2009 is being taken up as a leading case. The brief facts as emerged out from pleadings made in the writ petitions are that on 24.04.1996 Linkage Advice Letter issued to the petitioners by which the unit of the petitioners for supply of coal was linked to M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of M/s. Coal India Ltd. The Linkage Advice Letter contains certain conditions for the purpose of lifting the coal. 4. The aforesaid Linkage Advice Letter was issued after due verification from the representative of State Government who have ver...
Ajai Raman. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
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. 295 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Mawana, District-Meerut pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Meerut 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 malafide 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 Secti...
Narayan Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case no. 1644 of 2003 (State v. Jaipal Singh and others) under sections 420, 468, 469, 471 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. 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 malafide 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.4. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Su...
islam and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
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. 2287/IX of 2010 under Section 452, 376/511, 323 IPC, P.S. Purkazi District Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of A.C.J.M. I, Muzaffar Nagar as well as the summoning order dated 30.7.2010.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that protest petition has been treated to be a complaint case and after recording statement under section 200, 202, Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned. It is further contended that no offence under section 376/511 IPC is made out against the applicants by bare perusal of the documents on record as well as the statement recorded, therefore, summoning order is bad in law. It is next contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.3. He pointed out certain ...
Rajan Pandey Alias Maheshwar Pandey. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
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. 40 of 2006, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, Police Station-G.R.P., Basti, District-Basti pending in the court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Basti 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 malafide 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 canno...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »