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.
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Vs. D.E.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri J.P. Pandey and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, may be taken on record. 3. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Authorized Controller of Sanatan Dharma Inter College, Varanasi dated 02.07.1981 and 04.08.1981. Under the impugned orders the petitioner has been informed that his services would come to an end on 02.09.1981. It has further been recorded that the District Inspector of Schools had approved the payment of salary to the petitioner only for the period up to 30.06.1981. The other order dated 02.07.1981, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, informs the petitioner that his selection and payment as Lecturer in the institution was on temporary basis, the period whereof would expire on 02.09.1981 and his services shall stand terminated on 30.06.1981. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that a various posts of Lecturer were advertised by the Committee of Management of th...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India Thro Secretary Ministry of Personnel an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as an Agronomist/Soil Conservation Officer in the year 1981 on selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad through the Combined State Services Examination 1979. He was promoted and posted as Project Officer (Agriculture) Nainital w.e.f. 1.1.2000. During his service, he opted for the Hill Sub-cadre constituted for the agriculture department in pursuance to the Government Order dated 23.3.1982. 2. In accordance with the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as Act) a new State Uttrakhand (previously Uttaranchal) was constituted comprising 13 districts of the erstwhile State of of U.P. On the creation of the new State of Uttrakhand options were invited from the employees of the State of U.P. as to whether they would like to remain in service in the State of U.P. or would prefer services in the new State of Uttrakhand. The petitioner submitted option on 8.10.2000 for remaining in the State of U.P. on account of his heart ailment. A f...
Tejveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) whereby the Joint Director of Education (First), Meerut has declared the respondents no. 5 to 8 senior to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. 2. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset stated that since respondents 5 to 7 have already retired, he is pressing the writ petition only against the respondent no. 8 and, therefore, this Court is confining the issue of seniority only between the petitioner and respondents no. 8. 3. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under. 4. Kisan Inter College, Madhi, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'College') is a recognized aided intermediate college governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as '1921 Act') and U.P. High School and U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 ...
Mehi Lal Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. This criminal appeal has been filed by Mehi Lal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by Shri G. K. Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C No. 1 Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2004, State vs. Mehi Lal, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for short IPC, and in default of payment of fine, for further imprisonment of five months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sahej Ram of village Naresh Lonian Purwa, a hamlet of village Rukmangadpur, Police Station Kauria, District Gonda, was having illicit relations with appellant's wife Nankoon PW-3, who was residing in village Jangey Lonian Purwa, another hamlet of the same village. During the intervening night of 11/12.5.2002, at about 2.30 a.m., Sahej Ram woke up from the sleep and said to his wife Phoolpata PW-1 that he was going to cut sugarcane and proceeded towards his field with a Banka. She also accompanied him up to som...
Sukh Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. These two writ petitions, raising similar issues, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and reference to the pleadings in Writ Petition No.66154 of 2010 is sufficient for deciding both the writ petitions. 3. We have heard Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.N. Mishra and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing for the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited and learned Standing Counsel. 4. Brief facts of Writ Petition No.66154 of 2010 are as follows; the petitioner mortgaged his 1/3rd share in six plots area 2.813 hectares for obtaining a loan from respondent No.4. The loan was repayable in instalments within five years at the rate of 16% interest. The petitioner purchased a Vikram Taxi (Registration No.UP 70/Y, 9354). A notice for payment of road tax was issued to the petitioner on 3rd March, 2006 for the period 1st October, 2003 to 31st March, 2006 by...
Thakur Prasad Madhesiya Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deoria upholding the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Deoria, District Deoria whereby the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. An application for release of the disputed shop was filed by the landlord under Section 21 of the Act for settling his son in the business. The application was allowed. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 19.11.2010 holding the need of the landlord to be genuine and bonafide and also held that the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord. 4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application filed under Section 21 of the ...
Ram Pyare Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. The petitioners, working as Assistant Teacher in Mahatma Gandhi Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Japtapur, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as "School") having not being paid their salary since June 2007, have approached this Court by filing this writ petition in October 2009 seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to pay their salary along with arrears. Though the relief in the writ petition has been worded in much broader way so as to include other teaching and non teaching staff of the School but learned counsel for the petitioners has confined prayer to the petitioners in the present writ petition only. 2. The School is recognized by the Board of Basic Education under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1972 Act") and for the purpose of payment of salary of teaching and non teaching staff of the School, provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Act"...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Limited Raebareli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. Though there is delay of nine months and one day in filing the special appeal, but since there is no objections from the other side in condoning the delay and we also find that the grounds shown in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, are sufficient, we condone the delay. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 4. The appellant while working in the Indian Telephone Industries faced an F.I.R. with the allegation of theft of certain articles. The departmental inquiry was also instituted against the appellant by issuing a chargesheet. The appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 09.02.1987. The F.I.R. was lodged on 09.01.1987. The criminal prosecuti...
Surat Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar Singh learned Standing Counsel. 2. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21/6/2010, issued by the Mining Officer, Fatehpur issuing certain directions with regard to Form MM-11, with regard to weight i.e. cubic meter and the amount of royalty with regard to issuance of booklet of Form MM-11. Petitioner who is a lessee under the U.P. Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the "Rules 1963") has challenged the aforesaid order. 3. Shri Sabhajeet Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 21/6/2010, contended that the Mining Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such order. He submits that there is no approval obtained by the District Officer i.e. The Collector nor any survey was made. He submits that earlier the quantity and the amount of royalty was different which has now been changed by the impugned order dated 21/6/2010. 4. Counter affidavit has...
Rameshwar Singh and Another Vs. District Judge, Faizabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. Heard Mr.D.C.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th of July, 2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad in Original Suit No.241 of 2004 as also the order dated 10th of November, 2010, passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Revision No.215 of 2010. Before the trial court the issue for decision was; Whether the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.? 3. Before making any discussion on the facts and circumstances of the case in order to appreciate the correct interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the same is extracted here-in-below:- "Order 2 Rule 2:- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but if a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »