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.
Pramod Kumar and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Criminal Revision No.2360 of 2010 is directed against the orders dated 22.4.2010 and 7.6.2010 and Criminal Revision No.3884 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.244 of 2009 State Versus Pramod Kumar and others arising out of case crime no.311 of 2008 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Qyolaria, District Bareilly. 2. Since both the revisions arise out of the same case, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Sri R.K. Singh, advocate file memos of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 in both the revisions. The same be kept on record. 4. Heard Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record. 5. Initially charge under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the revisionists. By...
Kallo Vs. D.J.Gonda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.1995 (Annexure-1) passed by Civil Judge, Gonda rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for non-compliance of the provision under Section 17 of the Provincial of Small Causes Court Act and the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by District Judge, Gonda dismissing the revision. 3. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3. 4. Facts in brief that one Smt. Parvati Devi/respondent No. 3 filed a suit registered as SCC Suit No. 28 of 1986 along with her mother Smt. Mangla for ejectment and arrear of rent against the petitioner. 5. By order dated 15.4.1988, the suit was proceeded ex-parte and by order datred 5.5.1988 decreed ex-parte for ejectment and arrear of a sum of Rs. 3282.75/-. 6. Thereafter the petitioner moved an app...
S.P.Jalan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vikas Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Murlidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This is second bail application moved by the applicant S.P. Jalan, with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 802 of 2009 under sections 409,420,467,468,471 I.P.C. P.S. Sahibabad district Ghaziabad. The criminal misc. first bail application no. 31505 of 2009 has been rejected by Hon'ble Y.K.Sangal,J. on 17.12.2009 after considering the merits of the case. 3. This bench has been nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 13.7.2010 to hear this bail application. 4. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Prakash Chandra Gupta against the applicant on 3.4.2009 at 9.30 p.m. in respect of the incident illegally occurred since 1.9.2007 to 12.11.2008 alleg...
Ms Nawab Motors. Vs. Ms Metal Fab Industries Pvt. Limited.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Suit no. 5 of 2007 filed against petitioner M/s Nawab Motors for eviction from the property, was dismissed in default by the court below on 23.9.2008 as neither the plaintiff nor the defendant opposite party appeared on that day. 3. A recall/restoration application was filed in the aforesaid suit by the plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 4 read with section 151,C.P.C. and section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported with affidavit on 10.3.2010. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that respondent has entered into an agreement of sale with Anuj Kapoor and Anil Kapoor against the property and the respondent has received Rs. 45,00,000/- from them. Anuj Kappor and Anil Kappor has also taken possession from the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.5.2010 passed on application Paper no. 4C in Misc. case no. 35 of 2010, M/s Metal Fab Industries v. M/s Nawab Motors and the order dated 28.8.2010 passed on...
Ganesh Polytex Ltd., Raipur. Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. This case has pained us. Even if the stand of the revenue is correct--though there are doubts about it--this is not the way to go about doing it. Here are the facts. THE FACTS 2. The petitioner claims to manufacture Recycled Polyester Staple Fibre since 2000. According to the petitioner it is neither an excisable good nor any excise duty is leviable on the same. The petitioner has also been filing returns showing them as non-excisable goods. 3. A notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act (the Act) was issued to the petitioner for charging excise duty on the same. The petitioner filed its reply, which was decided against the petitioner. An appeal was filed. It was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.05.2004. The department filed an appeal before Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tribunal). The petitioner also filed his cross objection in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The appeal of the department was dismisse...
RamchandrA. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard Shri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The applicant who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 94, 411, 201 IPC in S.T. No. 260 of 2007 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.I V, Bareilly has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No4, Bareilly rejecting the application moved by him before the Court below under Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters & Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Gangsters Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Acts being Special Case No. 195 of 2007 pending before the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Bareilly, he moved an application under Section 12 of the Act before FTC No. 4, Bareilly with a prayer that the pro...
Smt.Urmila and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad), whereby the application of the applicants filed under under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. 3. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistra...
Pappu Sahani and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The petitioners (Pappu Sahani, Mithai Sahani, Savitry Devi, Rama Sahani, Satish Sahani, Pradeep Sahani, Meera Sahani and Anita Devi) have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1626 of 2010, arising out of case crime No. 11 of 2010, (State vs. Pappu Sahani & others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Gorakhpur. 2. The dispute is between the husband and wife. Considering the circumstance that relationship between husband and wife may not further undergo any bitterness, the matter may be considered for settlement by process of mediation. 3. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready for settling the dispute by mediation and are willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 8000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand only) towards maintenances and expenses of the wif...
Abdul Rashid Ansari and anr. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 16.7.10 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi in Complaint Case No.121/2010, Mahrunisha v. Abdul Rasid Ansari and another, under Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 452, IPC.2. It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged by Mahrunisha on 23.6.09 at P.S. Chauri, District Bhadohi alleging therein that the applicants after entering into her house on 27.5.09 at 9.00 a.m. tried to commit rape with her daughter-in-law named Jamila Bano. That FIR was investigated upon by the police and final report was submitted. Against the final report protest petition was filed by Mahrunisha which was treated to be the complaint and the statements of the complainant Mahrunisha and her daughter-in-law were recorded, after perusal of which the Judicial Magistrate IInd, Court No.12, Bhadohi, District Gyanpur summoned the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 5...
Abdul Rashid Ansari and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 16.7.10 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi in Complaint Case No.121/2010, Mahrunisha v. Abdul Rasid Ansari and another, under Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 452, IPC.2. It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged by Mahrunisha on 23.6.09 at P.S. Chauri, District Bhadohi alleging therein that the applicants after entering into her house on 27.5.09 at 9.00 a.m. tried to commit rape with her daughter-in-law named Jamila Bano. That FIR was investigated upon by the police and final report was submitted. Against the final report protest petition was filed by Mahrunisha which was treated to be the complaint and the statements of the complainant Mahrunisha and her daughter-in-law were recorded, after perusal of which the Judicial Magistrate IInd, Court No.12, Bhadohi, District Gyanpur summoned the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »