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.
Radhey Shyam Vs. Additional Commissioner and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner had filed a restoration application in a suit filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the respondent nos. 3 to 5, alleging that it was ex-parte and, therefore, the same should be restored and the matter should be decided on merits. The restoration application was rejected and the revision filed against the same has been dismissed, against which the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the said orders on the ground that the orders impugned are erroneous in law. 3. The suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R., 1950 Act by Shyam Narayan-respondent no. 3 arraying his grand-father Ram Niranjan as a defendant. The following pedigree would be relevant to understand the said controversy: Ram Niranjan Ram Kripal Sant Bux Radhey Shyam Shyam Narain Ram Kumar 4. It is alleged that in the suit an order w...
Sunil Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. Heard Sri Ram Swaroop Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Brief Facts 2. Petitioner was initially appointed on 19.02.2010 as a Senior Sales Officer in Grade G3 in M/S HDB Financial Services Ltd. and posted at his branch office situated at Lekhraj Khazana Complex, Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. As per the pleadings made by the petitioner in the present, in the month of June, 2010 he was verbally advised by the O.P. No. 2 to remain absent from his duty till further orders or till regular salary bills are cleared. Having no other alternative before him, he complied the said direction but when no steps were taken by the O.P. No. 2 in this regard, a legal notice was served by him on the opposite parties on 09.06.2010 inter alia demanding the outstanding dues of salary of the petitioner for the period 19.02.2010 to 31.05.2010, be paid to him within one month from the date of receipt of the legal notice. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the...
Aavesh Ranjan So Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part I examination, 2010 whose Role no. was 348816 conducted by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya University, Faizabad. In the said examination, answer books of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as per the version of the petitioner, has not been examined properly by the examiner, as such petitioner filed present writ before this Court with the main following prayers :- I.a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to opposite party no. 2 to provide the photocopy of the Answer book of the Zoology-III paper and Botany-I paper of the petitioner. II.a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to opposite party no. 2 to reevaluate the answer book of the Zoology-III paper and Botany-I paper of the petitioner by any other competent examiner. 2. Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the above said reliefs submits that alth...
Smt. Shahana Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. List has been revised. None is present either from the side of revisionist or from the side of opposite party no. 2. Learned A.G.A. is present. 2. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad) which was registered there as Case No. 192 of 2000. It was moved by the revisionist for maintenance against her husband for herself and her minor son. During the pendency of the petition, opposite party no. 2, Fayyaz, moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 17.8.2002 informing the court that he had already divorced the petitioner and had also informed his decision to her through registered post as well as by sending a telegram to her. In the said application, the opposite party no. 2 had requested the court that the proceeding should be truncated and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be dismissed. The said application was contested by the revisionist. She had specifically said in her objection that she has...
Sushil @ Raju and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 654 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC registered against the applicants pursuant to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 10.6.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party no. 2 filed a non-cognizable report on 30.8.2010 at P. S.-Pilkhua, District Ghaziabad against the applicants on the basis of which N. C. R. No. 36 of 2009 under Sections-323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. was registered. The opposite party no. 2 moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi under Section 155 (3) Cr. P. C. with a prayer that the concerned police station be directed to investigate the matter. 3. Pursuant to the order passed on the aforesaid application the matter was investigated and police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections-323, ...
Sitara and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 677 of 2009 under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Civil Line District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M., court no. 8, Aligarh. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no amount was due to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 and no cheque was ever give by the applicant to the opposite party no.2, therefore, initiation of proceedings under the charged section is bad in law. It is further contended that no notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act was served upon the applicant, hence the complaint is bad in law. It is next contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his c...
Sanjeev Kumar Varshne. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 677 of 2009 under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Civil Line District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M., court no. 8, Aligarh. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no amount was due to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 and no cheque was ever give by the applicant to the opposite party no.2, therefore, initiation of proceedings under the charged section is bad in law. It is further contended that no notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act was served upon the applicant, hence the complaint is bad in law. It is next contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his c...
State of U.P. Vs. Sakil Thakur and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. In Session Trial No. 137/1979 State vs. Shakeel Thakur & 13 Ors. VIth learned Additional Session Judge, Barabanki vide order dated 31.07.1980 has acquitted all the 14 accused of the case for the charges leveled against them. An appeal was preferred on behalf of the State against this judgment and order and an application to grant leave to file the appeal was moved under Section 378(3) CrPC. This application was allowed vide order dated 21.07.1981 and appeal was admitted for hearing on the same day. Accused respondents have put in their appearance in the Court. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court received report that one of the appellant Chhote Lal had expired, hence orders for abatement of appeal against him already passed. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated as under:- 3. An FIR was lodged by one Malik Ram of Village Pansara, P.S. Patranga, District Barabanki at P.S. concerned with the averments that in the "Gona" ceremony of his younger brother his sister Yashodhara ...
Km. Seema Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Sec. Lko. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The appellant assails the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 25.8.2010 whereby her claim for being considered as a candidate for B.T.C. Training Course, 2010 under the Shiksha Mitra category, has been dismissed in view of various provisions of the relevant Government Orders applicable to the controversy, treating her to be ineligible on account of considerable break in service. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal praying for quashing of the communication dated 10.8.2010 issued by the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Meerut informing her that since she was not regularly and continuously working as a Shiksha Mitra and there was break in her service between 1.8.2009 to 14.2.2010, therefore, she could not be considered as a candidate under the Shiksha Mitra category by virtue of clause 2 of the advertisement published pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.5.2010. 3. The learned Single Judge, after having discussed t...
Ms. S.K. and Associates and anr. Vs. Indian Farmer and Fertilizers Coo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The petitioners were claimants in arbitration proceedings. The learned Arbitrator, by his order dated 19.12.2008, terminated the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2007. The petitioners approached this Court contending that as the sole Arbitrator has terminated the proceedings, the Court may be pleased to appoint a new Arbitrator to meet the ends of justice. The application is moved under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'). 2. A few facts, from the record of the proceedings and relevant for consideration, may be noted. There was an agreement between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1, which contains an arbitral clause. Dispute arose between the parties. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 26226 of 2001 for non-payment of its dues on which order dated 25th July, 2001 was passed by this Court, which reads as under:- "In view of the aforesaid agreement, the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »