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.
Union of India Through G.M.Northern Railway Vs. Smt. Shyama Pandey and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that one Anand Kumar Pandey, aged about 20 years, an agriculturist as well as student, was travelling in Train No.3010 Dn Dehradun-Howrah express on 29.5.1999 after purchasing the second class ticket from Lucknow in order to reach Shahganj. When the train reached near railway station Rudauli, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which, he died at the spot. The mother of the deceased approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (in short 'Act').3. Written statement was filed by the Railway with the plea that it is not a case of accidental fall. The plea was also taken by the Railway that the deceased jumped from the moving train and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal framed...
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...
Hari Bhagwan Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Badaun rejecting petitioner's appeal filed under Section 160 of the Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is contended that the appeal was preferred before the District Magistrate, Badaun, who is the competent appellate authority under Section 160 of the Act, but he illegally and exceeding his authority transferred appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, Badaun, who has rejected the same by means of impugned order. Relying on para 18 of Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ratan Shukla, 1956 Cr.L.J. 579 it is contended that the District Magistrate was not competent to transfer the appeal instituted in his court and, therefore, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the District Magistrate was authorized to transfer the appeal and th...
Pramod Kumar Shrotriya and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The petitioners claimed that they are the duly elected members of the Committee of Management of Engineers Evam Karmchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'society') by the Election Officer on 26.11.2010 i.e. the date of withdrawal of nomination papers and a certificate to that effect was also issued on that date under Rule 443(1) of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1968') but by the present impugned order dated 23.2.2011, passed by the Registrar, Housing Cooperative Societies U.P. Lucknow (Housing Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow), a direction has been issued to hold the election afresh, ignoring the fact that once the nomination papers have been filed as per the election programme duly issued by the Election Officer and the petitioners having been declared as members of the Committee of Management unopposed, the election process which was disrupted thereafter can only commence from the stage of disruption a...
Durga Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Shahi, Advocate is present for the respondents.2. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Joint Director, Basic Education, Vth Region Varanasi dated 25.6.1999 whereunder the request made by the petitioner for grant of exemption from training, has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 11.5.2006 as inoperative whereby the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad has refused to count the period between 1.10.1974 to 30.6.1998, as period spent on duty by the petitioner for payment of salary and other purposes.3. Repeated petitions have been filed before this Court by the petitioner. However, the undisputed facts as emerge from the records of the present writ petition are: The petitioner before this Court was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Parishadi Vidyalaya on 6.12.1962 as untrained Teacher. He was afforded an opportunity to obtain training in ...
Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.E. Khan and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner who is a registered advocate, was appointed as a member of District Consumer Forum, Ambedkar Nagar on 5.7.05. The term of the petitioner was for five years, which came to an end in July, 2010. The petitioner applied for reappointment as member of the District Consumer Forum 6.7.2010 but without considering his case for reappointment, fresh appointment of opposite party no. 3 has been made.3. The petitioner's plea is that in view of the proviso to sub-clause (2) of sub-section 1-A of Section 10, he was entitled for being considered for reappointment and that without considering his case for reappointment, fresh appointment could not have been made. 4. Sri H.P. Srivastava refuting the aforesaid argument submitted that proviso to the aforesaid sub-section 1-A(2) to Section 10, does not give any vested right to the petitioner for ...
Dilip Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.2. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the petitioner was trying to get construction made on public land. His principal contention was that by getting construction made on public land, no offence under section 3 or 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, (hereinafter Public Property Act), is disclosed. We are not in agreement with this submission. Section 3 consists of two parts. The first part 3 (1) refers to any mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), which shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Mischief has been defined in section 2 (a) of the Public Property Act. The definition of "mischief" is to have the same meaning as given under section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 425 of Indian Penal Code defines mischief ...
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The petitioner took loan for construction of house from the respondent no.2-State Bank of India in the year 2002.2. The petitioner committed default in respect of the said loan Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated against the petitioners. 3. We have heard Shri Gulab Chandra , learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition.4. In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said...
Rup Singh Vs. Gopal Prasad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the District Judge, Mathura dated 9.12.2010 by which he has allowed the revision filed by the respondent against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior division, Mathura dated 9.8.2010 in Original Suit No. 439 of 2001, Gopal Prasad and others v. Mangi Lal and others.2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lalita Devi was the owner of the property in dispute. The said property was purchased by one Radha Govind by way of the registered sale deed from Smt. Lalita Devi.3. Radha Govind executed a will of the said property in favour of one Mangi Lal. Mangi Lal applied for mutation after the death of Radha Govind before the Tehsildar. The son of Radha Govind, namely, Gopal Prasad raised objection in the mutation proceeding on the ground that the will was forged. The Tehsildar allowed the mutation on the basis of the will and directed to enter the name of Mangi Lal in the revenue record in place ...
Savita Rani Vs. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 19 th June, 2009 as also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide salary to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of primary section attached to Mangal Rai Girls Higher Secondary School, Patla, Ghaziabad from the date of appointment i. e. 30.10.2000 and to continue to make the payment of salary as such regularly. 2. Facts, in short, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:3. Mangal Rai Girls Higher Secondary School, Patla, Ghaziabad is a recognized and aided girls high school. It is admitted that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder are fully applicable to the primary section, which is part and parcel of the same high school institution. One Smt. Krishna Rehlan is stated to have retired from the post of Assistant Teacher primary section. For filling up the said vacancy the manager of the institution obtaine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »