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.
Ms Guruni Motors Private Limited and Others. Vs. Col. S. K. Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. A lease deed was executed by Smt. Indira Sharam and Col. S. K. Sharma, respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this writ petition to which Lt. Commander V. K. Sharma, Sri Gagan Sharma and Sri Rahul Sharma, sons of Col. S. K. Sharma also are signatories. The lease deed was executed in favour of Sri Sunil Sharma Managing Director of M/s Guruji Motors Private Limited, plot no. 131/212 C.D. & E., situated at Mohallah Agra Cantt, Agra for a period of 9 years w.e.f., 20.12.2001. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by M/s Guruji Motors Private Limited through its Managing Director and Director Sunil Sharma and Ajay Sharma Director, respectrively who are referred here-in-after as defendants Ist set/ Petitioners, with the prayer for for quashing the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court. 18, Agra in SCC Suit No. 9 of 2004, Col. S. K. Sharma v. M/s Guruji Motors Private Limited and others. A further prayer has been made by the petitioners for writ of mandamus ...
Alok Nath Chattopadhya Vs Sri Anil NaraIn Tadvalkar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2010
1. Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under. Petitioner and respondent no. 1 entered into a partnership to carry out business in the name and style of M/s. Metals & Methods vide partnership deed dated 04.04.1997. The said firm was engaged in the business of Foundry and Binders. There was a dispute amongst the partners, and the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm, rendition of account as well as partition of the partnership property and possession and injunction, imp leading the other partner of firm and the firm as defendants. Defendant-respondent no. 3, who is stated to be a tenant in the property belonging to the partnership firm was also imp leaded. In response to the summons and notice, the defendants put in appearance and filed written statement dated 15.05.2006. A specific plea was taken in the written statement that the subject matter of the suit being covered by the arbitration a...
Ajay and ors. Vs State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing theproceeding of complaint case No.479/9 of 2009 State vs. Ajay and others) case Crime No.213-A of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. P. S. Kandhla, District Muzaffar Nagar pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar It is contended that the present proceedings is nothing but a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicant's side against the opposite party no.2 which is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law.2. It has been averred in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. 3. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it can...
Janak Dubey and Others Vs. Addl.Commissioner and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company, Seorahi, District-Deoria culminating in an order dated 14th November, 1967 declaring certain plots owned and in possession of the said company as surplus. Along with the order, the specific plots, which were declared surplus, were detailed in Annexure-1 to the order. This order of 1967 was not subjected to any challenge. At least from the records it is clear that the same is final, so far as the sugar company is concerned. In the list of the surplus land, disclosed in Annexure-1 to the order, plot no. 14, village-Domath, Pargana-Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil-Padrauna, District-Deoria, total area 29.39 acres was mentioned amongst others. The possession of the surplus land was taken and a gazette notification under Section 14 of the Act, 1960 was published on 15.01.1972. In the gazette notification, amongst other, plot no. 14, total area...
Vivek Kumar Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused record. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Plant Protection Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, U.P. on 13.1.1954. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director Plant Protection and retired from service on 30.11.1990. According to petitioner's counsel, after retirement, petitioner moved an application for payment of post retiral dues. According to petitioner's counsel, the Chief Accountant Officer, Directorate, Agriculture Department is competent authority to release pension and gratuity in accordance with the Government order contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition but the pension and gratuity of the petitioner was not released hence he submitted representation to the Director, Agriculture U.P. on 22.2.1991 contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition followed by another representation dated 30.5.1991, contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 3. Submission o...
Ramoo Bhadauriya and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant revision is directed against order dated 4.8.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / F.T.C. No.1, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No.65 of 1999 State v. Bhagwan Das & others, whereby the application of the revisionists 213 Ka under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.6 - the investigating officer was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that initially, in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W.2 - Smt. Rani has stated that on the fateful day at about 8:00 p.m., only one accused Vakil took her son Mahesh with him on the pretext of showing video. Later on, it was revealed that Mahesh was seen going along with the four persons, whereas in her statement before the Court, P.W.2 improved her version and stated that the four accused took her son with them and she had disclosed this fact to the investigating officer. The appli...
imran and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 05.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, District Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 6439 of 2009 (Farooq v. Imran and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C. 2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. It is further contended that the sister of the applicant no.1 had initiated proceedings against the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the applicant no.1 had also filed a complaint case against the in-laws of his sister under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., in which they were summoned and as a counter blast to the same, the prese...
Sharda Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing proceedings of the Case No. 411 of 2008 (Vidhyawati v. Sharda Prasad and others), under Sections 395/397 I.P.C., Police Station Jaswantnagar District Etawah pending before learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act), District Etawah as well as for quashing of the summoning order dated 13.01.2010 issued in the aforesaid case. 2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the F.I.R., was lodged after lapse of more than two years of the alleged incident and that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to political reasons. It is next contended that the m...
Rajendra Prasad Singh. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 7 of 2009 (Phool Chandra v. Rajendra), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406 I.P.C., pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, District Varanasi as well as for quashing of summoning order dated 03.04.2010 issued in the aforesaid case against the applicant. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 had sold the tractor in favour of the applicant for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs but thereafter, he demanded more money and the opposite party no.2 also filed an application dated 29.12.2007 before the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Varanasi against the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the applicant but the said Officer, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the tractor was sold by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the applicant, therefore, rej...
Rajpal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 253 of 2010 (Shobha Ram v. Rajpal and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, District Aligarh as well as for quashing of summoning order dated 31.05.2010. 2. 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 applicants. 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. 3. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »