Allahabad Court April 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.
Prabhakar Singh. Vs. District Co-operative Agrucultural and Developmen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Contending that after his reinstatement in pursuance to the orders passed quashing his compulsory retirement, arrears of salary and increment for the period when the petitioner remained out of employment have not been paid, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Records indicate that petitioner was compulsorily retired in July 2002. Petitioner challenged the same by raising a dispute under section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rewa and vide order-dated 20.9.2002 - Annexure P/1, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The order passed by the Joint Registrar was challenged by the respondent Bank before this Court in W.P.No.5624/2002 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 24.6.2003, available at page 18. Challenge made to the Supreme Court by the respondent Bank having met the same fate as is evident from Annexure P/2, available at page ...
Smt. Krishana Kanti Shukla Vs. Board of Revenue and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Shri S.K. Kakkar appearing for respondent no.4, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh appearing for respondent no.5 and Smt. Usha Srivastava appearing for respondent no.6.2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for any counter affidavit. It appears that the property belonging to respondent no.6 was put to auction sale in pursuance of recovery of dues of respondent no.4. At the said auction held on 30.4.2005 the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted. Thereafter the auction was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. Objection under section 285 I. of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (referred to as the Act) was filed by respondent no.6 before Commissioner on 28.1.2006 against the auction sale dated 30.4.2005. The said objection was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 23.2.2006 (annexure no.6 to the writ pet...
Moti Lal Goel Vs. C.B.i. Through Investigating Officer, C.B.i., Spe, D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 27.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 18.5.2010 and 9.8.2010 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad in criminal case no.257 of 2009, State (C.B.I.) Versus Moti Lal Goel & others under sections 120-B, 420 read with 511, 466, 471 IPC arising out of crime no.84 of 2005, Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, subsequently registered by C.B.I., S.P.E., Dehradun as F.I.R. No. RC 0072006A 0015 year 2006 dated 28.7.2008. 2. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The investigation of the case was transferred to C.B.I. in pursuance of order dated 28.7.2008 passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.1552 of 2005, Rajender Tyagi Versus State of U.P. & others.3. By order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Magistrate, an application, moved on behalf of the applicant and another co-accused for supplying the copies of certain documents as well as the copy of the case diary of investigation done...
Reet Ram and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Sisodiya and Sri Saini, learned counsel for the respondents. Counsel agree that the petitions be disposed of finally at this stage itself. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by persons claiming themselves to be the Vendees of late Moti Ram. They contend that they had purchased the property through a sale deed dated 9.12.1986. Upon having purchased the land, they claimed to have applied for mutation and the Tahsildar passed an order on 07.08.1987 against which a restoration application was filed by late Moti Ram. The said restoration was allowed against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Land Revenue Act, 1901. During the pendency of the said appeal, the consolidation operations set in and, therefore, the said proceedings abated. 3. It appears that objections were filed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the matter proceeded. The petitioners a...
Uma Kant Samal. Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This order shall decide WP No.6647/2011 and WP No.6649/2011 in which facts and relief prayed by the petitioner are similar. 2. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.6647/2011. The contention of the petitioner is that against the assessment order passed by respondent no.1, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before respondent no.3 which is pending. The petitioner has also moved an application before respondent no.3 for staying the operation of assessment order passed by respondent no.1. 3. The aforesaid application is stated to be pending since 25 th January, 2011. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent no.3 be directed to decide the application expeditiously. 5. Shri Sanjay Lal, appearing for the respondents, submitted that if an application is moved by the petitioner for expeditious hearing of the aforesaid application, respondent no.3 shall hear and decide the application for stay within 10 days from the date of filing of the aforesaid. 6. The prayer...
Madhav Singh. Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In the instant petition, filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has alleged that respondents no.4 to 9 have committed irregularities while implementing canal repairing work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme in District Seoni and have also embezzled Government fund allotted for the execution of several Schemes under the Irrigation Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.10 has joined subsequently, therefore, he has no grievance against the respondent no.10. 3. At the outset, Shri Trivedi, learned senior counsel submits that a similar Writ Petition No.5229/2011(PIL) has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.3.2011 with a direction to the petitioner therein that he can approach the Lokayukt in the prescribed format in respect of the allegations made in this writ petition and the Lokayukt has been directed to examine the same and take necessary action in accordance with law. 4....
Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2011
1. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.2. The petitioner has prayed setting aside the order dated 23/28 th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi in so far as the Chancellor has accepted the reference of disagreement of the Executive Council of the University under Section 31 (8) (a) of the U.P. State University Act, (in short, the Act), to the recommendations of the selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, for the post of Reader in Psychology (unreserved).3. The University issued an advertisement no.2 of 2006 for appointment on a large number of posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors by direct recruitment, followed by advertisement no. 6 of 2006 to the same effect. The ...
Dr. (Mrs.) Snehalata Prabhakar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2011
1. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.2. The petitioner has prayed setting aside the order dated 23/28 th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as he has accepted the disagreement of the Executive Council of the University to the selection of the petitioner as Lecturer (Sangeet-'Sitar') in the Department of Fine Arts of the University.2. In the meeting of the Executive Council dated 22.5.2009 after considering the recommendations made by the selection committee held on 9.9.2009 and 10.9.2009, it was found that in the Department of 'Manch Kala', the recommendations were made for one post of Lecturer in 'Sangeet-Sitar', reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate; Dr. Snehlata Prabha...
Mahendra Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Enforcement Officer, Transport Department, seizing the petitioner's vehicle popularly known as Jugad on the ground that the vehicle was not registered, it did not had any permit nor it had paid taxes as also the driver of the vehicle did not possess the driving license and on other grounds.2. We have heard Sri V.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have perused the averments made in the writ petition as also the documents filed along with it.3. Sri Maheshwari, learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 09.12.2005 in Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 - Avnish Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others, wherein a direction was issued to the transport authorities as well as the police authorities to seize and destr...
Kb.SharmA. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. Challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director (Prosecution) vide Annexure R/1 dated 18.1.2008, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Facts that have come on record indicate that petitioner at the relevant time, when this writ petition was filed, was working as Joint Director (Prosecution) in the pay scale 12,000-375-16,500/- and order in this regard is Annexure P/1. However, as a regular incumbent to hold the post of Director (Prosecution) was not available, petitioner was made Incharge/Acting Director vide order - Annexure P/2. As petitioner was already discharging the duties of a Director in accordance to the provisions of The M.P. Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1991’), petitioner submitted an application seeking regular appointment on promotion to the post of Director. However, when the same was not considered...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »