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.
Shri Balji Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord.2. The order impugned in this writ petition is passed by theAddl. District Judge, Mathura holding that petitioner suitNo.292 of 1990 is not maintainable in view of Section 6 ofU.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referredto as "Act 1976")on the ground that the petitioner is ateacher in an aided private school but since the liability forpayment of salary lie upon State Government, therefore, is aholder of a civil post and is a "public servant" as definedunder Section 2(b) of the Act therefore the suit is notmaintainable.2. It is contended that the logic and reasoning assigned byrevisional court is wholly misconceived and is contrary tolaw. 3. In my view, the submission is well founded and theimpugned order cannot be sustained. The term "publicservant" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, reads asunder:'Public servant' means every person in the service or pay of-(i) the State Government; or(ii) a local author...
Raj Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition,the petitioner took loan for construction of housefrom the respondent no.2-Allahabad Bank in theyear 2006.2. The petitioner committed default in respect of thesaid loan. Consequently, proceedings under theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have beeninitiated against the petitioner. 3. We have heard Shri Kuldeep Kumar Mishra,learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1and Shri Yashwant Singh , learned counsel for thecontesting respondent-Bank, and have perused theaverments made in the Writ Petition.4. In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon &others; reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, theirLordships of the Supreme Court have laid downthat in view of the alternative remedy availableunder the Securitization Act, the High Court inexercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitu...
Nishant Mishra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and thelearned A.G.A.2. This petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR dated 23.3.2011 registeredat case crime No. 106 of 2011, under Section 306/34 I.P.C., P.S. GurgaonSadar, district Gurgaon and the consequential proceedings thereto.3. The FIR lodged by Sri Shahrukh Khan son of the deceased Iqbal Asif Khanalleges that the deceased was working as Taxation Manager in XeroxCompany. On 23.3.2011 at 3.30 PM, the deceased had telephoned theinformant and told him that he was very disturbed by his officials. Then theinformant himself tried to contact his father but his phone was not picked up.4. Thereafter, he went to Gurgaon along with his maternal uncle (Mama.)In themeantime there was a phone call to the mobile of his 'Mama' from the mobileof his father that a corpse was lying in an under-construction building nearSouthend Opal in Gurgaon. The FIR named five persons including the fourpetitioners as having troubled his f...
Raj Pati Vs. Uppar Ziladhikari (F and R)/ D.D.C. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. Heard Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel the petitioner, Sri K. C. Kishan Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3.2. The background of the case is that the Plot No. 9/2 is the original holding of the petitioner and the contesting respondents. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were allotted separate Chaks being Chak No. 77 and 109. 3. An objection was filed by Chak holder of Plot No. 241, Ram Lakhan that his area was short. He had been allotted Plot No. 12. This application was moved in the year 1999. A report was submitted on the said application of Ram Lakhan and an adjustment was proposed by carving out the land of Plot No.5 to be adjusted in Plot No. 9 and the land of Plot No.9 in Plot No.12. Accordingly, the claim of Ram Lakhan was satisfied by the said adjustment and the Map was accordingly approved and...
Ahasan Ali Vs. Shashi Kant JaIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated22.5.2000 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge (SeniorDivision), Moradabad in Original Suit No. 1260 of 1995.THE FACTS2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that he isthe owner of the property in dispute and the defendantshave no concern with the same. The allegations in the plaintare as follows: Rahim Bux, father of the plaintiff-appellant was theowner of the property in dispute described in the end ofthe plaint. He had orally gifted the property in disputeto the plaintiff on 14.8.1972. He was minor at that timeand the gift was accepted on his behalf by his mother; The father of the plaintiff was working as a labourer inthe shop of defendants no. 1 & 2 (respondents no. 1 &2 in the present appeal). He had developed bad habitsand started taking loan from them; The defendants no. 1 & 2 by taking undue advantageof the father of the plaintiff, got his thumb impressionon the papers by committing fraud; The defend...
Smt. Somati and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner came to knowthat on the basis of sale deed executed by Sadhana Sahakari Samiti,the respondent no.5 and 6 got their names mutated in the revenuerecord through an ex-parte order dated 9.12.1996, they moved anapplication for recall of the ex-parte order dated 9.12.1996 as well asorder dated 8.11.2000. The said application was allowed vide orderdated 30.1.2006. Respondent no. 5 and 6 preferred a Appeal before theSub Divisional Magistrate, which was dismissed vide order dated30.5.2006. Thereafter aforesaid respondents filed a revision, which wasalso allowed vide order dated dated 26.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved bythe said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board ofRevenue but the same was dismissed. 2. Counsel for the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objectionthat the present writ petition is not maintainable since it relates tomutation proceedings. 3. Under these circumstances, the primary question to be...
M/S Sweet Plastic Pipes Private Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed making the following prayers:"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature Certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dt. 7.2.2011 (Annexure No.1) issued by the respondent No. 1/2.(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to recover any amount on the basis of impugned recovery certificate dt. 7.2.2011 (Annexure No.1) and also not to take any coercive measures in pursuance thereof.(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the One Time Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner vide application dt. 5.1.2011 and 24.1.2011 (Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively).(iv) issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.(v) award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."It appears that the petitioner took ...
State of U.P. Through Secy.Samaj Kalyan Lucknow Vs. Shri Chhabi Nath Y ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. Heard learned standing counsel, and Sri J.C. Srivastava learned counsel for the claimant respondents and also perused record.2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, dated 31.1.1997 by which the Tribunal has set aside the order by which the claimant respondents' promotional avenue was cancelled. Brief facts giving rise to the dispute, are discussed hereinafter.3. Claimant respondent No. Chhavi Nath Yadav was appointed as Class-IV employee in the respondent Institution namely, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya Inter College, Rampur (in short the Institution). The claimant respondent No.2 Munshi Singh Yadav was also appointed as Class-IV employee on 12.8.1995. The Institution falls in the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P.. The qualification of claimant respondentNo.1 is, B. Sc., B. Ed., and that of claimant respondent No.2 is, M. A., B.Ed. The...
Devendra Singh Bhatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. Writ petion is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure 28 to the writ petition) passed by Registrar, Bundelkhand University cancelling mark-sheet and degree of B.Ed. issued to petitioner in 1994 being forged and fictitious having been obtained by playing fraud and thus cancelling his result of the said course.2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, as stated in writ petition, are that petitioner obtained his academic qualification of High School in 1978, Intermediate in 1980, B.S. in 1989 and M.Sc. in 1996. He was temporarily appointed as Teacher in Sri Guru Nanak Khalsa High School, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi on 9.8.1993 for imparting education in the subjects of Science and Maths. The initial engagement of petitioner was without any remuneration or in other words, on honorarium basis, but subsequently he received salary with effect from 1.8.1994. He sought admission in B.Ed. course conducted by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in 1994. For that purpose he claims to h...
Ravindra Giri Goswami and Another Vs. Daraganj Ram Leela Committee, Da ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The plaintiff revisionists have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the court of first instance in Original Suit No. 729 of 2005 Ravindra Giri Goswami and another v. Sri Daraganj Ram Leela Committee and another rejecting the application paper no. 56-A for the impleadment of respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (IInd Set) in the revision.2. The plaintiff revisionists instituted the above suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of the property no. 912/566 Daraganj, Pargana and Tehsil- Sadar, Allahabad city having area of 500 sq. yards more particularly described by the boundaries in the plaint on the allegation that the aforesaid property was in the shape of a house belonging to Rai Radha Raman Agrawal which ultimately devolved upon Durgesh Agrawal from whom it was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 10 th February 2005. The house was initially numbered as house no. 614 thereafter as 495, 566 and presently 912/56...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »