Allahabad Court March 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.
Shyam Lal Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai for the respondent no.2.2. This is a dispute arising out of allotment proceedings. A decision on merits was taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after the decision of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Learned counsel places on record a certified copy of the order sheet dated 20.1.2006 and 6.2.2006 which indicates that the order dated 6.2.2006 had been passed after hearing the counsel for both the parties on 20.1.2006.3. It appears that a restoration application was filed by the respondent no.2 on 6.3.2006 contending that the order was ex-parte and even otherwise the order dated 6.2.2006 works injustice against him. Accordingly a fresh order was passed on 19.12.2006 impugned herein.4. I have perused the records.5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the garb of the recall the impugned order dated 19.12.2006 has been passed reviewing the earlier order dated 6.2.200...
Shekhar Tewari and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard Mr.Parmanand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. I.B.Singh, Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 407 Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.446 of 2009 State v. Shekhar Tewari and others and Sessions Trial No. 447 of 2009 State of v. Vibha Tewari from the court of Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow to the court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow or any other competent court at Lucknow for fair and impartial trial and decision. The petitioners of Crl. Misc.Case No. 1109 of 2011 have challenged the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the learned court below, whereby the petitioners application seeking permission to re examine Mr. Suresh has been rejected. 2. The petitioners state that learned trial judge has put a piece of evidence collected by him through his personal laptop available on YOU TUBE SERVER and in order to prove it he had su...
Kamal Nayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The State is represented by the Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner was serving as Regional Food Officer/Incharge District Supply Officer, Gorakhpur. He has been placed under suspension by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Lucknow by the order dated 8.12.2010, giving rise to this writ petition, for quashing the suspension order and for a writ of mandamus not to give effect to the suspension order, received by the petitioner on 12.12.2010.3. The substance of allegations against the petitioner, on which he has been suspended, are that in between April, 2009 to April, 2010 the State Government allocated 3240 kilo litres of kerosene oil to District Gorakhpur, in addition to the allocations already made for the district. The petitioner, instead of distributing the kerosene oil in all the seven Tehsils, allotted the additional quota only in four Tehsils. He made allocations only to four whole sale dealers as ...
Nirmal JaIn Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. ...
Court: allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. At the behest of respondent no. 1-Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as PICUP), the Assistant Collector of Grade-I, Defence Colony, New Delhi on 3.7.2004 issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the amount outstanding in the name of the Company in lieu of the loan taken and the interest payable on a sum of Rs.6,33,57,669/- was to be recovered from the petitioner.2. The petitioner was the sole guarantor for the said loan advanced by the PICUP. According to the petitioner, no certificate has been issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for realization of the said amount as arrears of land revenue.3. M/s. Jayana Mefa India Limited was a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 865, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6. The petitioner was the Director of the said Company. In 1995, the Company approached the PICUP for advancing a loan for furtherance of their business initiatives. A loan of Rs.500 lacs (fiv...
Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India Andf ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh appears for the respondent-bank.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relation Division, Manipal by which he was removed from service of the bank in breach of Regulation No.3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Sindicate Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 and the order dated 17.6.2009 passed by the General Manager (Personnel)/ Appellate Authority, Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relation Division, Manipal by which the appeal preferred by him was disposed of confirming the penalty of removal from service of the bank with immediate effect.3. The petitioner was serving as Asstt. Manager, Kotvan Branch, Mathura. He was issued chargesheet dated 8.6.2007 for major penalty proceedings vide Regulation 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officers Emplo...
Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. This Jail appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 20.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.4, Deoria whereby convicting accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one year.2. Briefly stating the facts of prosecution case are as follows:3. As per contentions raised in FIR, it is alleged by informant Kailashi Devi wife of Rajendra Kewat that she is resident of Gram Changaha, Tola Luathahi, Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria. It is stated that her husband often used to say that Bitna is not his son and he did not eat food cooked by his wife Kailashi. The parents of informant Kailashi used to nurture her children and herself. On the alleged date of incident after taking food, she was sleeping with her two children inside the kothari and the door was bolted from inside the room. The dibri was lightening. At about midnigh...
Bhanu Pratap Mehra Vs. M/S Brij Leasing (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. By means of the present revision the revisionist is challenging the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Agra by which the application of the revisionist 65-C claiming rejection of plaint summarily has been rejected.2. M/s Brij Leasing (P) Ltd. filed a Suit No. 812 of 2009 through its Director Sri Avin Jain against the revisionist. The plaint was duly signed and verified by Sri Avin Jain. The plaint was filed through counsel Sri N.K. Gupta, who has also signed the plaint. The suit was for specific performance. The defendants have filed written statement specifically disputing the authority of Sri Avin Jain, to sign, verify and institute the suit on the behalf of the company as no documentary proof had been filed at the time of presentation of the suit in compliance of Order 7 Rule 14 read with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.).3. The respondents filed an interim stay application on which t...
Yogesh Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. The office of the Additional Solicitor General of India accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India. The State Bank of India is represented by Shri Arun Kumar Mishra.2. The petitioner was selected as a Probationary Officer in the selections held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. CRPD/PO/2008-09/04 published by the State Bank of India in unreserved category. By this writ petition he has prayed for quashing the communication of Assistant General Manager (Human Resources), State Bank of India, Human Resource Department, Local Head Office, Bandra East, Mumbai dated 18.5.2009, intimating him that he is medically unfit for the appointment in the bank as Probationary Officer. In the medical examinations conducted on the person of the petitioner, it was reported by Dr. Atul Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, State Bank of India, Varanasi vide report dated 25.4.2009 in columns 15 and 16 t...
Rampal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P.and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard Sri S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.2. No notice is issued to private opposite party no. 2 in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party no. 2 to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved. 3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/ Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)-II, Moradabad in complaint case no. 622 of 2006 (Uma v. Ram Pal & others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, whereby the application moved on behalf of the applicantsaccused for re-examination of witnesses examined u/s 244 Cr.P.C. was rejected.4. The impugned order was challenged earlier by the applicants by means of Criminal Revision No. 3173 of 2010, which was dismissed by another Bench of this Court vide order 11.1.2011 on the ground of mai...
Suredra NaraIn Singh at Babu Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate and Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. Nobody is present for the respondent no. 4.2. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 31.01.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1987 dismissing the appeal. Before adverting to the facts of the petition it is appropriate to record that the present writ petition was dismissed under a judgment dated 08 th May, 2007.3. The petitioner made a review application, which was granted by the Hon'ble Judge on 06 th February, 2009 and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Hence this petition has again been placed for hearing before this Court. 4. Fact in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:5. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »