Allahabad Court February 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.
Sanjeev Awasthi and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned G.A. for the State respondent. 2. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicants has been filed in the Court today annexing therewith certified copy of the remand sheet dated 03.02.2011, certified copy of the first information report filed in case crime no. 35 and 36 of 2011, which is being taken on record. 3. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case crime no. 36 of 2011 under sections 489-A, 489-B IPC, P.S. Collectorganj, District Kanpur Nagar and also for quashing of the remand sheet order dated 03.02.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the perusal of the first information report would show that the applicant no. 1 together with applicant no. 2, his driver, are said to have been arrested on 02.02.2011 at 11.00 p.m. near Girja Palace Hotel in Collectorganj area and recovery of Rs.8,01,000/- of counterfeit currency is said to have been made from the applicant. ...
Vinayendra Nath Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. This reference raises issues involving the power of the State to impose and realise Additional Stamp Duty on an instrument of lease executed for a contract to realise toll in respect of two bridges in the district of Allahabad over the river Ganges, namely Lal Bahadur Shastri Bridge and Chandra Shekhar Azad Bridge. The imposition of this Additional Stamp Duty is under the provisions of Section 39 (1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1972 read with the Indian Stamp Act 1899. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have assailed the orders of the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Allahabad, under Section 31 of the 1899 Act as also the revisional orders passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 (2) of the Act, upholding the said imposition. 3. A learned single Judge of this Court, while proceeding to hear the writ petitions, took notice of a Division Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioners in the case of M/s Bilal ...
Sheoraj Vs. Ma Accord Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. We have heard Shri S.O.P. Agarwal for the plaintiff-appellant. Shri Shashi Nandan assisted by Shri Anoop Trivedi appears for the defendant-respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order arises out of an order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad dated 24.12.2010 in OS No. 2343 of 2010 Sheoraj vs. M/s Accord Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. rejecting the application for interim injunction, after hearing the parties. 3. The plaintiff-appellant has filed an Original Suit No. 2343 of 2010, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents to construct road or building, taking exclusive possession and for interfering in the joint possession and use of the land in Khasra No. 292 area 0.2780 hec. and plot No. 274 area 0.2530 hec. in village Mahrauli Pargana Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. 4. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff along with his brothers Bhagwant Singh and Satveer Singh were the joint owners and in possession of the property. His brothers ...
Ms Singh Engineering Works (P) Ltd. Kanpur Vs. Labour Court. V Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 27.06.1997 passed by Presiding Officer Labour (V) Kanpur in Misc. case no.32 of 1992 Ram Raj and Ram Din under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the workmen Ram Raj and Ram Deen respondent nos. 2 and 3 was that services of several workmen including the applicants were terminated by the petitioner on 31.12.1969 regarding which Industrial Dispute was raised (Adjudication case no.106 of 1970). The reference was decided in favour of the workmen on 31.07.1975 against which a writ petition was filed in this Court being writ petition no.1403 of 1976 in which an interim order was passed on 20.05.1976 staying operation of the award challenged therein. Thereafter on 20.01.1983 writ petition was dismissed on the ground that petitioner employer had stated that all the 13 workmen had accepted monetary benefit/compensation in lieu of the benefits under the award. The names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were at seri...
Sri Narendra Singh Vs. the Vii A.D.J., Meerut and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.08.1999 passed by the revisional court, appended as Annexure no. 7 to the writ petition. 3. The back ground of the case giving rise to the impugned order is that the disputed accommodation is a part of House No. 91, Church Street, Meerut. It was previously owned by one Sri D. K. Sharma, who had let it out to Sri K. C. Agrawal who vacated the same in December 1978 upon the request made by the then landlord/owner. The Rent Control Inspector conducted a spot enquiry on 05.03.1979 and submitted his report to the effect that the disputed premises was vacant. Accordingly, it was declared vacant by the competent authority vide order dated 06.03.1979. 4. The petitioner appears to have moved an application dated 06.03.1979, i.e., on the same day on which an order was passed by the Delegated Authority declaring vacancy, for allotment of the...
Ms India Exports Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. We have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Krishna Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Addl. Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Addl. Solicitor General of India, High Court, Allahabad has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioner is an industrial unit established in the Noida Special Economic Zone (in short SEZ), manufacturing furniture, which is cleared for sale to Domestic Tariff Area Units (in short DTA Units) under Section 2 (i) of the Special Economic Zone Act and which means whole of India under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (SEZ Act of 2005) but does not include areas of the Special Economic Zones. The sale are mostly made to hotels promoting furniture as capital goods under the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Schemes on concessional customs duty. The petitioner also exports furniture outside India. 3. For the assessment year 2006-07 for Central Sales Tax, the Deputy Commissioner (Admi...
Sudha Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Other
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. We have heard Shri Raj Kumar Pandey for the petitioner. Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri S.K. Misra represents Union of India. Shri V.K. Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri A.K. Sinha appears for the State respondents. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Sunita Agarwal appears for the University. 2. The applications for B.P.Ed Entrance Examination 2008 were invited by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur for admissions to the B.P.Ed course, in the self-finance unaided educational institutions. These unaided private institutions are stated to be ten in number affiliated to the University. The advertisement for admissions to the academic session 2008-09 provided, that for the said course, the reservations as provided in the Rules of the Government of U.P will be applicable, clarifying that vertical reservations of 27% for Other Backward Classes (excluding creamy layer); 21% for Scheduled Castes ...
Jaiveer Prasad Gautam and Another Vs. State of U.P. Through the Princi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Manjive Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension orders dated 22.12.2010 as well as the charge sheets dated 30.12.2010, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 to 4, to the writ petition. The petitioners are said to be the President and General Secretary of the Directorate General of Medical Health and Family Welfare Ministerial Association, Lucknow. The petitioners are employed in the Directorate on the posts of Senior Assistant and Junior Clerk respectively. The election of the Ministerial Association was said to have been held on 1.12.2010 and the oath ceremony of the office bearers was held on 22.12.2010 in the premises of the Directorate of the Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lucknow at about 4.00 P.M. in the presence of the senior officers. It appears that after the oath ceremony was ...
Gulam HussaIn and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge Court No.13 Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Kumar on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Akash Prasad holding brief of Sri Vinay Verma who put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 01.10.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority/Small Causes Court, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 20 of 2000 and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 1 in Rent Appeal 45 of 2008. 3. Controversy involved in the present case relates to the the House bearing municipal corporation no. 337/193 under the tenancy of the petitioner situated in Tapewali Gali Kazgain Poad Mansoor Nagar, Lucknow(hereinafter referred as premises in question). 4. In respect of same, an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been moved by the landlord-respondents. Accordingly, a P.A. Case no. 20 of 2000 registered before the respondent no. 2, allowed vide ord...
Ms Rahman Exports Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur Thru Director Mohd. Razi Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Heard Sri R.K. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 5 and Sri Qamar Ahmad who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 6. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Kanpur. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 27.8.2010 passed in T.T.P.W. Case No. 2 of 2008 passed by the opposite party no. 3. It further challenges the recovery certificate dated 27.8.2010 passed in pursuance of the aforesaid order whereby an amount of Rs. 1,83,17, 232/- is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner under the U.P. Industrial Peace ( Timely Payment of Wages ) Act, 1978. The petitioner has also challenged the recovery citation dated 7.9.2010 issued by the opposite party no. 5 to the writ petition. The orders so challenged have been annexed as Annexures no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit was very promptly filed by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »