Allahabad Court January 2011 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.
Prem Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This bunch consists of writ petitions relating to the Government servants of Group A, Group B and Group C services in various Government departments of the State, like Vidhan Sabha, Civil Secretariat, Irrigation, Rural Engineering, Agriculture, Statistics, Drugs Control, Consolidation, Education, Medical and Health, Veterinary, Soil Conservation, Fire Service and Public Works Department, etc. and writ petitions relating to corporations, like U.P. Jal Nigam and U.P. Power Corporation Limited, etc. 2. All the writ petitions raise common challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 and in particular Rule 8-A and similar provisions in the service rules of the Corporations and other departments. 3. The writ petitions have made a challenge to the aforesaid Rule and also to Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 as ultra vires Articles 14, 16(4-A...
Uco Bank, Regional Office, Jawahar Nagar, Bhelupura, Varanasi, Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2011
1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3 and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents no. 2 & 3 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate by which he had stayed his earlier order dated 15.2.2010 on an application dated 5.3.2010 submitted by the respondents no. 2 & 3. 4. Brief facts of this case which have emerged from the parties are; that the petitioner no. 1 has been extending finance facility to the customers from its various branches including petitioner no.2. Cash credit facility was granted to the res...
Kumbhi Chini Mill Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2011
1. Heard Mr.R.N.Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Dr.R.K.Srivastava & Mr.A.K.Pandey, learned counsels for the opposite party No.4 as well as Mr.K.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5. 2. The dispute between the sugar mills demanding more and more sugarcane for allotment in their favour is perennial in nature. The allotment of sugarcane and reservation as well as assignment of sugarcane area is regulated under the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as also the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. For the purpose of Reservation and assignment of sugarcane area, the Cane Commissioner is empowered under Sec...
Abhijeet Trivedi. Vs. State of U.P and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2011
1. Heard Sri Avanish Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and stay the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. It is further prayed that the Courts below be directed to disposed of the bail application of the applicant expeditiously preferably on the same day and during the pendency of the bail application the applicant be enlarged on interim bail by the court blow." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition as per version of the F.I.R. in brief are that Monika Tandon (deceased), the sister of the opposite party no....
Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2011
1. The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, working as a Food Inspector, has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the seniority list dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the State Government determining inter se seniority of Chief Food Inspectors/Food Inspectors in accordance with U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Seniority Rules, 1991") read with U.P. Food Inspector (Medical Health and Family Welfare Department) Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Food Inspectors Service Rules, 1992") wherein the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 216. He has also challenged the promotion letter dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) whereby promotions from the post of Food Inspectors to the post of Chief Food Inspector have been made. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that 51 persons have been promoted to the posts of Chief Food Inspector in the scale of Rs. 9300...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›