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.
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Rai and Others Vs. District Inspector of Schools, M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. This dispute relates to the validity of elections of the Committee of Management of Bapu Inter College, Siyarahi, Mau, stated to have been held on 27.9.2009 which also involves the dispute relating to the electoral College entitled to elect the said Committee who are none other than the Members of the General Body of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Siyarahi, Mau, the parent Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. The orders under challenge in this writ petition are dated 25.8.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools finalizing the electoral College and declaring the list of Members entitled to participate in the elections and the order dated 26.9.2009 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has recognized the said elections and attested the signatures of Respondent No.4 as Manager of the institution. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 14.12.2009 staying the operation of the order dated 26.9.2009. 3. The respondents have put in...
Yogendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Heard Sr. D.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sisodia, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P, Mr. Shishir Tondon appearing on behalf of Union of India and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention of petitioner, Yogendra Singh Chauhan, on the following two grounds:- (i) Delay in forwarding and disposal of the representation by the State Government. (ii) Representation was not placed before the Advisory Board, which was mandatory under Section 10 of the National Security Act. 3. In the present case, the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the aforesaid act on 11.5.2010. It was served upon the petitioner through Jail Authorities since he was already in detention in criminal case at district Jail, Ghaziabad. On 13.4.2010, the police of Police Station Kasna recovered fake c...
Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. The petitioner - society runs several institutions of the primary and middle level that came to be registered in the year 1942, inspired by the preachings of the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi and also encouraged by the local population of district Aligarh, Agra and the surrounding areas. The society was set up with the object of removing illiteracy and propagating education on Gandhian lines. 2. The institutions run by the petitioner - society are now called upon to shut down and closed under the orders of the Basic Educational Authorities on the ground that the institutions established and run by the petitioner - society does not have any recognition and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 running of such institutions is prohibited. 3. The petitioner had earlier come up before this court questioning the said action taken by the Assistant Basic Education Officer, Khair Aligarh whereupon this court proceeded to d...
Maharaj Kumar Mohammad Amir Ali Khan and Another Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard Mr.Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.I.B.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Prashant Singh Atal, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of Case No.9733 of 2007, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow as well as the orders passed therein issuing non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The petitioners are charge sheeted under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC for commission of offence on the basis of the police report for tampering with the records i.e. Register No.147 available in the office of the Sub Registrar of the Office of the Registration, Lucknow. 4. The petitioners' claim that Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, father of respondent No.2, executed one 'Hibbanama' of some of his properties in favour of his other th...
Har Govind Das Vs. the Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Judica ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neeraj Upadhyay for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court since pleadings are complete. 3. The petitioner Har Govind Das has challenged the orders dated 22.2.2000 (annexure-4), 6.7.2000 (annexure-5), 21.9.2002 as mentioned in the order dated 23.09.2002 (annexure-7), 26.04.2004 as mentioned in the order dated 30.04.2004 (anneuxe-8) and order dated 08.09.2006 as mentioned in the order dated 11.09.2006 (annexure-10) whereby he has been denied promotion on the post of ''Upper Division Assistant' from the date his junior was promoted and all other consequential benefits and his representation/appeal in this regard has been rejected. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under:- 4. The petitioner was appointed as ''Routine Grade Clerk' in the registry of the ...
Babu Hargovind Dayal Trust, Lucknow Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate and Sri D.D. Chopra for the respondents. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf respondents 2 and 3, but the petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder affidavit, as according to him it is not needed. 3. In short, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, "B", Lucknow, by means of which, the Tribunal has remanded the matter regarding the renewal of the exemption certificate issued under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for being decided afresh after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax-I, Lucknow, by means of which, the application for renewal was rejected. 4. The petitioner though initially made an effort to point out the illegality in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the matter and saying that the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue itself,...
Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges and, hence, the reference. 2. The learned Judges have not framed the question which is required to be answered. Yatindra Singh, J. was of the opinion that:- The site of a model shop can be relocated during an excise year; Model shops upto 15 percent can be created during an excise year; The petitioner cannot object to the creation of new model shops (within the permissible limits) as he got his licence renewed with this knowledge; Model shop can be advertised in middle of the excise year in an area where a shop is in existence; and, therefore, came to the following conclusion:- "54. My conclusions are as follows: (a) Subject to rule 2-A and rule 5 of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968, the Collector has got the power to relocate a liquor shop for cogent reasons; (b) A liquor shop can be created during an excise year in terms of policy and advertisement; (c)A model shop can be advertised in the midd...
Yogendra Kumar Gond and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard Shri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri R.N. Yadav for the respondent no.7. 2. Sri Durga Ji Post Graduate College, Chandesar Azamgarh is a degree college (hereinafter referred to as the 'College') affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. It appears that some complaints were made against the Principal of the College whereupon the Director, Higher Education sent a letter to the management to look into the matter and do the needful. Consequently the Management resolved on 3.9.2004 to suspend Dr.Durga Prasad Dwivedi, Principal of the College in a contemplated inquiry. The Principal represented the matter before the Vice Chancellor against the order of suspension, who by order dated 19.10.2004 stayed the suspension order dated 03.09.2004, though permitted the management to continue with inquiry. The suspension order was ultimately set aside by the Vice Chancellor by order dated 1...
Cm Vijaya Vidyalaya and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate and Sri D.D. Chopra for the respondents. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf respondents 2 and 3, but the petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder affidavit, as according to him it is not needed. 3. In short, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, "B", Lucknow, by means of which, the Tribunal has remanded the matter regarding the renewal of the exemption certificate issued under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for being decided afresh after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax-I, Lucknow, by means of which, the application for renewal was rejected. 4. The petitioner though initially made an effort to point out the illegality in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the matter and saying that the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue itself,...
Smt.Rachna Bajal Vs. Rent Control and Deviction Officer City Magistrat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manish Kumar , learned counsel for opposite party no.1 , Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Murtaza H. Khan learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 and 6. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2009 ( Annexure no.2) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow and order dated 14.5.2010 ( Annexure no.1) passed by Additional District Jude, Court no.13 , District Lucknow. 3. Controversy in the present case relates to ground floor of house no. 80/22/1, Bansmandi Gurudwara road, Police Station Naka Hiindola , Lucknokw known as 11 Devendrapuri, Lucknow. ( hereinafter referred to as ' premises in question') 4. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question belongs to Late Pandit B.M. Tripathi and as per his will , a society has been constituted known as Late Pandit B.M....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »