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.
Jay Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Asst Dir., of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Heard Sri G.C.Verma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Applicants approached this Court for redressal of their grievances by filing Writ Petition No. 3148(SS) of 2010 (Jay Bahadur Singh and another v. State of U.P. And others). On 06.08.2010, an order passed quoted hereinbelow:-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel while notice on behalf of opposite parties no.4 and 5 has been accepted by Sri A.M. Tripathi, who pray for and are granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the sanctioned strength which was prevailing prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 2.7.1990 but at the time wh...
Mohd.Aslam Vs. A.D.J.Barabanki
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Adil Khan on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Controversy involved in the present case relates to a shop in mohalla Purana Bazar, Qasba Rudauli, district Barabanki and which petitioners are landlord, opposite party no.2 Haji Ehsanul Haq is a tenant @ Rs. 10/- per month. 3. On 10.3.1981, petitioner moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act ( hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') for release of the shop in question . In para 4, need as set up by the petitioners is to the effect that the shop in question is required for the purpose of doing business of selling readymade garments by petitioner no.4 Mohd. Uzair. 4. Further in para-8 of the release application, it is stated that the tenant has one shop at purana bazar mohalla Khwaza Hall district Barabanki and one shop in Mohalla Katra district Bar...
Raghav Saran Rai and Others Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants Raghav Saran Rai, Shiv Badan Rai, Brijendra Nath Rai and Phullan Rai against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court no.2 Ghazipur whereby the appellants have been sentenced and convicted under sections 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each , in default the appellants shall undergo further one month's imprisonment and the co-accused Sheoji Rai and Smt. Seema Devi were acquitted from the charge of section 302 IPC.2. The genesis of the prosecution case narrated in a nut shell in the first information report is that Fateh Narain Rai lodged a first information report on 18.3.1993 at 10.30 a.m. alleging therein that in the intervening night of 17/18.3.1993 between 12 to 2 'O' clock Shiv Badan Rai, Phullan Rai, Arvind Rai ,Bijendra Rai Raghav Saran Rai had brutally beaten the wife of Ramji and when the wife of Ramji Rai became unconscious ,at about 2 'O' clock she wa...
Ajit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. The petitioner took loan for business purposes under the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yogna from the respondent no. 4-Union Bank of India in the year 2007. The petitioner committed default in payment of loan, and consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The Recovery Citation dated 28.2.2011 has been issued in this regard. Copy of the Recovery Citation has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. As per the said Recovery Citation, an amount of Rs. 1,45,683/- plus other charges is due from the petitioner. 2. We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.3. Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount due from him together with up-to-date interest if time to deposit the same in instalments is granted.4....
Shri Ram and ors. Vs. Deputy Direct or of Consolidat Ion, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. This Bench has been constituted by order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 03/8/2009 to answer the following five questions as framed by referring order dated 21/7/2009, by the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition: (I)Whether the law laid down by the learned single Judge in the case of Jagdeo and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, and others, 2006 (101) RD 216, is in conflict with the other decisions of this Court referred to herein above and as noticed by the learned single Judge himself in paragraph no.32 of the said judgment?(II) Whether the learned single Judge merely because of having arrived at a different conclusion as against the decisions cited to the contrary, on a consideration of additional aspects, could have rendered the decision2 himself, instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench in view of the law laid down in the case of Rana Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1995 ACJ 200?(III)Whether the learned single Judge...
Amrita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling of the counter affidavit.3. Prayer made in this petition is a mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to accept the application form submitted by the petitioner and to consider her candidature for selection on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Girls Inter College. An advertisement dated 29.12.2010 was issued inviting application for selection on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the institution for different subjects. There was stipulation in the advertisement that only those applications would be considered, which are received by 2.2.2011 and subsequently on corrigendum issued by respondent no. 2, the last date was extended to 10.02.2011. Accordingly, the advertisement prescribed only one mode of submitting application form by registered post.4. It is conten...
Vivek Kumar Singh, Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. The petitioner took loan from the respondent no.2-Bank of Baroda under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yogna for purchasing pots and pans in the year 2008. The petitioner committed default in payment of loan, and consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The Recovery Citation dated 29.12.2010 has been issued in this regard. Copy of the Recovery Citation has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. As per the said Recovery Citation, an amount of Rs. 1,51,617- plus other charges is due from the petitioner. 2. We have heard Shri Amaresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Shri Ajal Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.3. Shri Amaresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount due from him together with up-to-date interest if time to deposit the same in instalme...
Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. On the application of the petitioner a 25 KV transformer was installed by respondent no. 2 and an electrical connection was given to his tube well. Subsequently respondent no. 2 gave another connection from the same transformer to another consumer. As per allegations, due to the new connection, the capacity of the tube well of the petitioner was adversely affected. Therefore he made a representation dated 21.2.2011 to the Executive Engineer but it has not been heard and decided as yet. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Electricity Department and learned Standing Counsel.According to us, it is a highly technical matter which is required to be considered by one of the highest authority of the Power Corporation. In case the representation was not considered by the Executive Engineer, higher authorities like Superintending Engineer or Chief Engineer were available for considering the cause. The petitioner could have approached such ...
Neetu Maurya and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. Sri Jai Narayan appeared for the private respondents No. 4 to 8 and filed a counter affidavit on their behalf which is taken on record.2. Heard Sri Lalit Maurya and Vinod Kumar for the petitioners and Sri Jai Narayan for the private respondents (respondent Nos. 4 to 8) and learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.3. In the present habeas corpus petition, the question of legality of the custody of petitioner No.2 Nikki Maurya, an infant aged about one year and two months is involved. The petitioner No.1 Neetu Maurya is the mother and the respondent No.4 is the father of the child. The child is presently in the custody of the father. The case of the petitioner is that the child has been kept by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in their custody without any lawful authority. She, being the mother of the child, is entitled to the custody of the child, therefore, the custody of the child may be handed over to the petitioner No.1 Neetu Maurya.4. This court vide order ...
Raghuvendra Mishra Vs. the Union of India, Ministry of Finance. Deptt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party- Union of India.2. The petitioner has challenge the order impugned dated 3 rd of March, 2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011, whereby the petitioner's bail has been cancelled.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted bail on 13 th of January, 2011 on the ground that the prosecution had not collected any evidence to connect him with the crime. He is implicated in the case mainly on the ground that the house in which Pan Masala/Gutkha factory was running, is owned by the petitioner. The court below in granting bail held that there is no prima-facie, evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Thereafter, the respondent-Union of India moved an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly on the ground that the petitioner has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »