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.
Daya Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. rd learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.7.2010 (annexure 2) passed by the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Jalaun, District Orai as well as the order dated 28.4.2010 ( annexure 1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Orai in regard to complaint case no. 176 of 2009, Bhagwati v. Ramdas and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Orai at Jalaun. 3. The main allegation in the complaint is that the husband of the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the certain agricultural lands. He died and consequently the respondent no. 2 inherited the property. It is alleged that the petitioners, in order to grab the property of the husband of the respondent no. 2 on a forged will and got mutated their name in the revenue record. Therefore, in the complaint case, the will has been alleged as a forged and fa...
Nagar Palika Vs. Balram and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. In view of the office report dated 31.08.2010, service upon respondent no. 1 is deemed sufficient under Chapter-VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules. 2. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahjahanpur has filed this petition against an award of the Labour Court dated 25th May 1987, whereby the reference made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by the State Government, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 15/1985, has been answered in favour of the workman and against the employers. 3. The award is being challenged before this Court on the ground that in Nagar Palika Parishad requisite number of Tax Collectors were not available. Therefore, with the permission of the Commissioner, on year to year basis, appointments of Tax Collector was made. Under last permission approval granted by the Commissioner, with reference to his power under Section 70 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, expired on 30th June, 1978. Therefore, a letter was forwarded seeking further sanction, fo...
Badri Prasad Vs. Special Adj Gonda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. 2. None present on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Brief facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner-plaintiff has filed a Regular Suit No. 238 of 1981 in the court of Munsif, Tarabganj, District Gonda for cancellation of a sale-deed in respect to the house properties as well as agricultural land and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, and from raising any construction over the property in dispute. 5. Defendants filed their written statements inter alia stating that in view of the relief as claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the Suit, the same is not cognizable before the Civil Court, thereafter the trial court had framed issues out of which the issue no. 8 was to the effect as to whether the Suit filed by the petitioner is ...
Ram Bahadur Maurya Petitioner Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner by virtue of agreement was granted a licence to run a fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Bhanwa, Vikas Khand Rahi, Raebareli in the year 1995. The said fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 9.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same , the petitioner filed an appeal ( Appeal no. 521 of 2006) before the Commissioner , Lucknow Division Lucknow and the same was allowed by means of order dated 26.12.2006 directing the opposite party no.2 to decide the same on merit by 31.1.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the said fact , the matter came up again for consideration before opposite party no.2, who by means of order dated 26.2.2007cancelled the petitioner's agreement. The same was challenged by means of statutory appeal before the Co...
Union of India and Others Vs. No. 031518484 Ct, Gd Manish Kumar and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. We have heard Sri Ashok Singh learned counsel for the respondent-appellants, Union of India. Sri I.P. Yadav appears for petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Sri Manish Kumar, Sri Raju Singh and Sri Hambir Singh the petitioner-respondents, in this Special Appeal were recruited in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 15.02.2003. While undergoing training, on verification of their educational and castes certificates, under Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1965, it was found that the High School Certificate of Sri Manish Kumar was forged, and the caste certificates produced by Sri Raju Singh and Sri Hambir Singh were also forged documents and were never issued by the respective Tehsildars. Their services were terminated by the Commandant 151th Battalion CRPF, Kratkhati, Assam on 28.2.2004 under the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 with effect from the date of expiry of one month, from the date of service of notice. The petitioners filed a writ...
Laxmi Prasad Mishra (Laxmi Chandra Mishra) S.O Late Ambika P Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Caveator as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Opposite Party No. 2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad whereby the Magistrate has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar, Sadar, Faizabad lodged a complaint against the petitioner who is a practicing advocate in Sadar Tahsil, Faizabad with the allegation that he had inserted his name in the Vakalatnama filed by Saroj Kumari during the pending case in the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Sadar, Faizabad. The Opposite Party No. 1-Smt. Rajpat...
State of U.P.,revenue Thru Prin.Secy. and ors. Vs. Khushi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Bajpai learned Standing counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ajit Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 3.8.2006. 3. The brief fact given rises to the present controversy is that petitioner, working as Class IV employee in the office of Settlement officer (Consolidation) Bijnore, absented himself from duty from 30-11-1996 without any sanctioned leave and again tried to resume duty on 26.5.2001. A plea taken by the claimant respondent is that on account of certain injury he become unconscious and after regaining his conscious he tried to resume work on 26.5.2001. However, in the year 1967-68 the entire fund with regard to GPF was paid to the claimant respondent. When the claimant respondents was not permitted to resume duty, he submitted a representation, which was decided b...