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.
Anurag Agarwal and Another Vs. Upendra Nath Bansal .
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application against the petitioners and the judgment in Misc. Appeal dated 07.08.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 9, Agra dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) vide P.A. Case No. 57 of 2002 with the allegations that the respondent is owner landlord of the premises no. 21/24, Chimman Lal Road, Freeganj, Agra in which Shri Harendra Kumar Agarwal was the tenant and after his death, petitioners are the tenant. According to the respondent, the accommodation in question consists of a hall, tin shed and 03 small rooms over an area of 300 sq. yards on the ground floor of which the peti...
Anand Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Since both these special appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2010 passed by learned Single Judge and the facts are similar in both these special appeals, these are being decided by this common judgment. Special Appeal No. 1270 of 2010 (Anand Singh and another V/s. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as a leading case and its facts are given below:- 2. This special appeal no. 1270 of 2010 has been filed by the appellant respondent namely Anand Singh and Binda Devi Patel against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2010, passed by Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30472 of 2008, by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the Joint Director of Education holding the election, held by respondent no. 5, Committee of Management, Janta Inter College Kanta, District Chandauli on 25.11.2007, in which the respondent no. 6, Murahu Singh was elected as manager of the institution, as invalid. 3. In brief, the facts of...
Jagat Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned reply/order dated 17.4.2010 sent/passed by respondent no. 3 with the further prayer to direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 (herein after referred to as Rules of 1974), within specific period. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the father of the petitioner late Radhey Shyam was confirmed Class IV Employee with the respondents and he expired in harness on 21.11.2007. Initially the father of the petitioner was issue less therefore through registered adoption deed he adopted the petitioner on 25.2.2004, copy of adoption deed has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. After the death of father, the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 3.12.2007 under the Rules of 1974 but nothing was done. The p...
Ms Larsen and Toubro Limited. Vs. Ms Maharaji Educational Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in Execution Case no. 43 of 2004 for enforcement of arbitral award dated 11.12.2003 passed by Arbitral Tribunal under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant and Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, Advocate for the respondent. 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether the validity of arbitral award can be challenged in proceeding for its enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the ''Act') taking recourse to section 47 C.P.C. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are as under : 5. An agreement dated 1.7.1998 was entered into between the applicant and respondent for construction of three Blocks of medical college. Claus...
indukant Dixit and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The two petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28th December 2007 whereby they have been denied continuance as Assistant Teachers in L.T. grade in the Institution known as Intermediate College, Kanchausi Bazar, Aurraiya. The Institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the appointments are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the regulations framed thereunder. 3. The petitioner no. 1 Indukant Dixit has been appointed against a short term vacancy that fell vacant due to the ad-hoc promotion of one Shiv Kumar Tewari and the petitioner no. 2 Pramod Kumar was appointed on ad-hoc basis on account of the ad-hoc promotion of Raghvendra Singh Sonkar. 4. It is undisputed that the above appointments of Shiv Kumar Tewari and Rag...
Sushil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of without calling for any counter affidavit and without issuing any notice to the opposite party. From the facts stated in the affidavit filed along with this application, it transpires that on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Smt. Meera Devi, opposite party no. 2 at P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi a Case Crime No. 37 of 2003 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & D.P. 2. Act was registered and charge sheet was submitted against all the applicants by the Investigating Officer without making any investigation and without recording the statements of either the complainant or other witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whereupon learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi by his order dated 1.10.2008 directed further investigation. After passing of the aforesaid order, an application was moved b...
Suresh Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 24.06.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 4971 of 2009 (Kailash Nath v. Suresh Singh and others), under sections 382, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur. It appears that the applicants had earlier filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing the summoning order. 2. The earlier petition was heard and dismissed by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. His Lordship found no merit to interfere with the summoning order but provided an opportunity to the applicants to seek their discharge. Accordingly, the applicants moved an application for discharge. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the materials on record found that no case for discharge was made out and adequate evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C. was available on rec...
Om Prakash Keshari. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. With the consent of the parties, this application is being finally disposed of without seeking any counter affidavit and without issuing notices to opposite party no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 18/27 and 18A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi which was registered as Case No. 747 of 2010.3. The main allegation against the applicant in the complaint was that he had no license for the go down and no sale-purchase records were available with him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi by the order dated 2.2.2010, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit accompanying this application, registered a complaint and summoned the applicant for appearing before him on 10.3.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that summoning of an accused in a crim...
B.K. Khandelwal. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The applicant who is accused in Case No. 200/XII/05 arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2005 (Mul Chand Pandey v. unknown) under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.6.2010, passed by ACJM, Mathura whereby he has directed further investigation in the matter. 2. The facts of the case as emerging from the affidavit filed in support of this application are that on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by opposite party No. 2 case Crime No.67 of 2005 under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act registered against the applicant who holds a license under the provisions of U.P. Control Order, 1962 and is authorised agent and seller of Kerosene oil. After the lodging of the First Information Report the applicant's license was suspended and thereafter cancelled by order dated 27...
Balveer Pal. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this application is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ist, Chitrakoot considered the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. and passed the order dated 3.6.2010 whereby refused to summon the additional accused, namely, the petitioner Balveer Pal on the basis of the statements of P.W. 1 Chunni Devi and P.W. 2 Asha Devi and required the prosecution to examine other witnesses. 4. It further appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it proper to dispose of the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. after examination of other witnesses, but on 27.7.2010, the same Additional Sessions Judge passed the summoning order on the basis of the statemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »