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.
Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited and Another. Vs. State of U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Heard S/sri Umesh Chandra and Nageshwar Rao, Senior Advocates, assisted by Sri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners and Sri Jyotendra Mishra, learned Advocate General, duly assisted by Government Advocate. 2. As in all the aforesaid writ petitions, question of law was involved and as such, both the parties consented for deciding the matter finally without exchange of pleadings, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, all the writ petitions are being deciding by a common order. 3. In all the afore-captioned writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the validity of the Government Order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government directing the police to register cases or initiate action under Sections 272/273 IPC inter alia on the ground that it has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights of the employee's and agents of the Company as available under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and have consequently prayed for quashing of the FIR registered ...
The Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Shamken Spinners Ltd. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent-Company that the Letters Patent Appeals, as filed would not be maintainable. It is submitted that considering Section 483 of the Companies Act, an appeal would lie only in respect of the order made or decision given in the matter of winding up. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the appeals arise not from an order in winding up, but an order for reconstruction of debts and in these circumstances, the appeals ought to be dismissed. 2. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant and respondent no.2, it is sought to be contended that merely because there is no appeal provided under Section 483 of the Companies Act, would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals as filed are maintainable and the preliminary objection ought to be rejected. We may reproduce Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the A...
Yashoda Raj Kumari Kunjil Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Management had preferred this petition to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 7 as Principal of the institution by transfer. At the relevant time, there was no Committee of Management and a Prabandh Sanchalak had been appointed. The appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak has been upheld by a learned Single Judge and the same was affirmed by a learned Division Bench. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Judge by his order dated May 23, 2002 noted the judgment of another learned Single Judge in the case of Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (46) ALR 301, which had taken the view that under Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is provided that the post of Principal in a institution can also be filled by transfer from another college, where the person sought to be transferred was appointed after selection by the Board, but such transfer is permissible only with the consent of the Management of both the ins...
SariA. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of accused Saria who has been convicted to death sentence under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/-. Besides, conviction under section 147, 148, 452 and 307 read with section 149 IPC by the judgment and order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2 , Mahoba. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that Jagdish on 25.12.2000 at 6:00 p.m. came to the house of informant and informed him that he has been called upon by his brother Shiv Pal. The informant thereupon followed him for the house of Shiv Pal who was at a distance of about one and half furlong from the informant's house. As soon as they reached near the garden of Pastorji the informant found accused Saria, Jagdish, Deo Karan and Hari Ram armed with guns and Parma armed with an axe fired at him with intention to kill. Upon such firing the informant ran away in his village. Then all these accused with a comm...
Brij Raj Singh Rana Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2, and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case no.1474 of 2006, S.K. Pathak vs. Brij Raj Singh Rana, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Meerut. 3. The respondent no.2 has filed the aforesaid complaint mainly on the ground that he was no doubt a member of the Central Bank Employees' Salary Co-operative Society, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') but was not a director nor an office bearer of the society nor contested any election for the post of director. The petitioner, who had been nominated by the District Magistrate to conduct the election for the post of directors of the society, fabricated false papers and gave the report that the respondent no.2 contested the election for the post of director and was one of the elected directors. In view of this ...
Devendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri,learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. None is present for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case no. 16758 of 2006, Nanhey Lal Mishra v. Devendra Pratap Singh and others. 3. It appears that in the case crime no. 62305660091, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. , P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad, the investigating officer submitted a final report, against which the respondent no. 2 filed a protest petition along with affidavits. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the protest petition and the final report and passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2006 rejecting the final report and taking cognizance of the offences and issuing processes against the applicants. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitt...
Dr. A.P. Paliwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. This reference arises out of a doubt expressed by a Division Bench about the correctness of the judgements noted therein on the proposition relating to addition of services as a Teacher in a Government School in Madhya Pradesh towards the services of a Lecturer in an aided Degree College in the State of U.P. for computing pension and other post retiral benefits. The decisions, including those mentioned in the referring order, that are subject matter of resolution through an authoritative pronouncement, are:- (I)Writ Petition No. 1614 of 2000, Dr. Ajita Bhattacharya v. State of U.P. decided on 18.1.2001. (II)Writ Petition No. 17417 of 2000, Dr. Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and others decided on 30.4.2001. (III)Writ Petition No. 17418 of 2000, Dr. Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and others decided on 30.4.2001. (IV)Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava v. Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow, reported in 2003 (1) ESC Pg. 643. (V)Writ petition No. 35605 ...
Zaheen Ahmad Siddiqui. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 407 (1) (C) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-complainant for transfer of case crime No. 642 of 2005, under Sections 452, 323, 506 I.P.C., Case No. 1319 of 2005 from the court of Judicial Magistrate Mohammadi, Lakhimpur Kheri to any court at the district headquarter, Lakhimpur Kheri. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that he is practicing Advocate in High Court, Lucknow Bench. He had lodged a written report against the accused Mohiuddin alias Meenu at Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri. Consequently, the police on the basis of written report registered a case at Crime No. 642 of 2005, under Sections 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. 3. The investigating Officer after investigation of the case has submitted charge sheet, which is pending for trial in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mohammadi, Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner submits t...
Bhagwat NaraIn Chaturvedi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. The appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') possess a teaching certificate, namely, Buniyadi Praman Patra Pariksha conducted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1994-95, which they claim to be an equivalent certificate in terms of such recognition conferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the directives dated 16.3.1973, a copy whereof is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. They submit that such a certificate was issued under a valid authority and therefore, they are fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as Assistant Teachers under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. They rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2027. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the said equivalence was not a valid recognition and the same has also been withdrawn in the year 1997 through Government Order dated 11/13th August, 1997 a...
Shyam Veer Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the revisionist this revision is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Heard Sri C.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 3. This is a revision against the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura in S.T. No. 262 of 1997, State vs. Ram Veer and others whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial in respect of the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1, Munish Kumar (complainant ) and the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the statement of this witness. Sri Upadhyay submitted that the revisionist was in jail on the date of occurrence and therefore his presence at the time of occurrence was false. Therefore, the summoning order has been passed without application of mind to the facts of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »