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.
Sohrat Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by the Ist Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti in criminal complaint case no. 297 of 2004 (Ram Samujh v. Sohrat & others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and judgment and order dated 2.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2005 (Sohrat & others v. State of U.P. & others). 2. The facts are that respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint in the court of J.M. Sadar against the petitioner and co-accused Ajmat Ali, Ram Kewal, Hari Prasad and Ram Sagar alleging therein that he had executed a gift deed in favour of his nephew Ram Bariksha son of Paras Nath on 1.11.2003 and had also executed will in favour of Ram Bariksha, respondent no. 3. His action was not liked by his brothers Chaitu and Sohrat, and they, with intention to grab the ...
CM Mathur Vaish Shiksha Pracharini Sabha K. Thru' Manager Vs. State Of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The appointment of respondents No.7 and 8 on Class IV post in S.G.M. Inter College, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as "the College") has been challenged by the Committee of Management of the said College on the ground that respondent No.8 was the son of real sister of the then Principal Sri S.K.Sharma and respondent No.7 belongs to the village in Rajasthan of which respondent No.9 the then Secretary, Education, Braj Mohan Mina belong. The averment to this effect is made in para 12 of the writ petition. 3. Sri S.K. Sharma, the then Principal himself has filed counter affidavit and in para 10, he has denied any relationship with respondent No.8 and with respect to respondent No.7, he has shown his residence at Agra and also his registration in District Employment Office, Firozabad. In reply to para 10 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.5, which has been sworn by Sri S.K.Sharma the then Principal of the College...
U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, constituted under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, has filed this Special Appeal through its Secretary, challenging the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2009 in Writ Petition No. 40377 of 2008, allowing the writ petition and holding that the filling up of the advertised vacancies, subject matter of Advertisement No. 1 of 2005, (a) by adjustment in exercise of powers under Rule 13 (5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998, of candidates selected in pursuance to the earlier advertisement; (b) by transfer of candidates from other institutions against advertised vacancies; (c) by compassionate appointment; (d) by promotion and (e) by absorption of subject experts under Section 31-E, is patently illegal and in the teeth of the provisions of the Act of 1982 and the Rules of 1998 framed thereunder. The Court held that all such kind of appointments a...
Jhagaroo Vs. Kamli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Respondent No.1, Smt. Kewali instituted a suit against the petitioner, which was registered as O.S. No.124 of 1979, claiming therein that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner Jhagaroo and she must be paid maintenance for herself and for her son from the petitioner, Ram Lal, who is respondent No.2 in this writ petition. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.1 was not his legally wedded wife and one Smt. Susheela was his wife. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that the suit was not maintainable before the Munsif and family court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was decreed by Munsif Mohamadabad, Ghazipur. Appeal filed from the same being Civil Appeal No.209 of 1982 was also dismissed on 18.12.1985. In para-7 of the writ petition, it has been stated that second appeal is pending in this High Court, however no number of the same has been given. 2. Thereafter respondent No.1 filed execution application before the Court which had passed the decree i.e....
Ms Om Kattha Udyog and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. Petitioner no. 2 Santosh Singh Chandel is running an Unit in the name of petitioner no. 1 'M/s Om Kattha Udyog' and is manufacturing/ processing Kattha ( for industrial use) since the year1993 under registration with District Industries Centre, Directorate of Industries,Government of U.P. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition with a prayer that a direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur, District Ramabai Nagar to open the seal of business premises of M/s Om Kattha Udyog. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that due to the influence of some political leaders of the area, the executive authorities raided the petitioners' unit on 30.7.2010 and after making an enquiry about the said unit with Sri Anirudh Singh, brother of the petitioner who by chance was present there having nothing to do with the petitioners' Unit, prepared a report and lodged a first information report on frivolous grounds against Anirudh Singh. On 30.7....
Cm GramIn Vikas Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The matter was heard on 18.1.2011. 2. The challenge to the order of the Joint Director of Education has been raised on several grounds whereby the Joint Director of Education had accepted the elections of the respondent no.5 dated 12.4.2009. The following interim order was passed after having heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Bhushan for the respondent no.5 and Sri P.N.Tripathi for the respondent no.6. 4. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education respondent no.3 recognising the elections claimed by the respondent no.5 to have been held on 12.4.2009. 5. Apart from other grounds the main ground of challenge is that the said elections dated 12.4.2009 could not have been recognised inasmuch as the elections were held through one Kalp Nath Maurya who was the then Manager continuing on the strength of a status quo order passed by this Court on 9...
Cm Adarsh Kisan Inter College and Another Vs.- State of U.P. and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Singh for the caveator, who had also earlier appeared in opposition in Writ Petition No. 65426 of 2010. 2. Sri S. P. Singh appears for the complainants namely Jugendra Pal Singh, Mahendra Singh, Darshan Pal Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Ram Pal Singh. He submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and the matter may be heard and disposed of finally. The same stand has been taken by the learned Standing Counsel. 3. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to clarify that the respondent no. 4 Harpal Singh is the Ex-Manager of the Institution, who had been elected in the Election held on 15.06.2007 and is directly related to the complainants in the manner as disclosed in paragraph 35 of the Writ Petition. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to issue noti...
Hardam Singh (Since Deceased) Substituted by Devi Singh and ors. Vs. D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Heard Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicants. 2. This is an application filed by the applicants seeking review of the judgment dated 03.09.2009 dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders passed by consolidation authorities in chak allotment proceedings. Shri Rajiv Sharma was neither counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition nor had argued the petition and this fact is admitted to him. 3. The question of propriety of filing a review petition and argument by a new counsel, who did not appear in the earlier proceedings, has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, AIR 1997 SC 1005, wherein it was observed as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the advocate on record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Sri Prabir Choudhary who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor he was pre...
Janardan Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 1999 though actually in 2006 on the post of Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. in Centralized Services Cadre B Post, as a result whereof when his pay was fixed in the promoted scale, it got reduced from the actual basic pay which he was receiving in the year 2006. The respondents consequently passed an order on 10th October, 2007 for recovery of excess amount which the petitioner has already received before promotion treating it to be an excessive payment. 3. It is submitted that firstly the aforesaid payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation and secondly, it was paid to the petitioner what was actually due to him at that time and merely because he was given promotion from backdate, as a result whereof his basic pay while fixation got reduced, that would not entitle the respondents to recover the amount treating the payment already mad...
Vibhor Raj and Another Vs. the Convenor, Common Law Admission Test and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashovardhan, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as Mr. D.K.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. 2. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade their candidatures to their higher preference treating 4 seats vacant in the University under the terms of Brochure issued by the opposite party no.1, which governs the Common Law Admission Test. The relevant clause i.e. 13 of Brochure is extracted below:- "A candidate would not be allowed to go for a lower preference if a seat is vacant in the higher preference based on the principle of merit-cum preference. No candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to a University of his/her lower choice if a seat, on the basis of his/her merit and preference is available at a University of his/her higher choice. But the CLAT admission committee, before his/her admission, may ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »