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.
Prabhat Chandra JaIn and Others Vs. Sri Navneet Sehgal, Chairman U.P J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Factual matrix of present case as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are that they are working in U.P. Jal Nigam, for redressal of their grievances applicant No. 1 (Sri Prabhat Chandra Jain) had filed a Writ Petition No. 864 (SB) of 2004, disposed of by order dated 19.07.2006 after placing reliance on the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harvindra Singh v. Chief Engineer, Karmik and Ors, 2005 AIR SCW 5995, the relevant portion is as under:- "We, therefore, direct that the petitioner, for the reasons given in the judgment, shall be treated to have continued in service till the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner has already retired, after attaining the age of 60 years, he shall be paid his post retiral dues treating him to have retired on completing the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits." 3. Further the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed a Writ Petition No. ...
Ayub and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2011
1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, (Special Judge, D.A.A.), Banda, dated 27.9.2006. 3. The prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R., which was lodged at 9.20 p.m. on 9.8.1991, by Constable Surendra Singh, P.W. 4 at P.S. Tendwari was that the informant and Constable Gopal Yadav were doing picketing duty regarding the movement of trucks at a school situate near Semari Nala. At about 8 p.m., two empty trucks came from the direction of Banda. The informant and Constable Gopal Yadav asked the two trucks to proceed after making a convoy for the sake of security, but the two trucks drivers did not heed the prayer, but kept on proceeding, whilst looking in the direction of the police personnel on duty. The deceased Constable Gopal then approached the truck from the western side and flashed his torch and tried to stop the tru...
Anwar at Shintu Vs. State of U.P.and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2011
1. The learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete respondent no. 2 from the array of the parties.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.4. It appears that the applicant is facing trial under sections 498-A/304-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide the Session Trial No. 116 of 2010 (State v Anwar alias Shintu & others) which is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No 7, Fatehpur, and is in jail as he had no advocate to defend himself, therefore, the learned trial court appointed an Amicus Curiae for conducting the trial on his behalf, who made cross examination of P.W.-1, Smt Raeesa Khatoon.5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Amicus Curiae has omitted to put certain relevant questions to P.W.-1, Smt. Raeesa Khatoon...
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.2. The petitioners have challenged the order impugned dated 23.2.2011, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Court No. 29, Lucknow, whereby the petitioners' application for transfer of case for trial to the Armed Forces Tribunal has been rejected on the ground that in the matter the charge sheet has already been filed and the court has taken cognizance of the offences, therefore, now it cannot be transferred to the Tribunal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners invites the attention of the Court towards the provisions of Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speaks for delivery of the case to commanding officers of persons liable to be tried by Court-martial. Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted herebelow:-475. Delivery to commanding officers of persons liable to be tried by C...
Ram Pheran Yadav Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the records.3. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make amendments in the prayer of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that license of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 06.01.201. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1 which was registered as Appeal No. 80-03 andin which on 12.01.2011 an interim order was passed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner by which the effect and implementation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 was directed to be kept in abeyance till 23.02.2011.5. It appears that the respondent no.1 was not available on 23.02.2011, as a result, the interim order dated 12.01.2011 granted in favour of the petitioner could not be e...
Ramesh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The petitioner took Cash Credit Facility for business purposes from the respondent no. 2-State Bank of India.2. The petitioner committed default in respect of the said facility.3. Consequently, the 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 petitioner.4. We have heard Mrs. Archana Mishra , learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition.5. 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 norma...
Sarwan Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took loan for construction of house in the year 2005.The petitioner committed default in payment of 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 petitioner.We have heard Shri Shrawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition.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...
Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. We have heard Shri Shahroze Khan for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.2. Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57791 of 2008; Dr. Dinesh Chand Pandey, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57795 of 2008 are Bachelors of Homeopathic, Medicine and Surgery and are registered with the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. Lucknow vide Registration No.25477 dated 26th April, 2002 and Registration No.24249 dated 28th May, 1997 respectively. They are practicing homeopathy in Distt. Siddharth Nagar. Dr. Faizan Ahmad, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57794 of 2008, is Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery from Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi and is registered with Indian Medicine Board, U.P. vide Registration No.9016 dated 14.6.2001. He is practicing Unani Medicine at Siddharth Nagar.3. All the petitioners had applied for and were registered by Chief Medical Officer/ Competent Authority for running ultra sound clinic under Rule 6 (2), 6 ...
Gyanesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This is a transfer application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for transfer of Case Nos.197 of 2006 (State v Gyanesh Kumar & others), under sections 498-A and 323 IPC and of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 527 of 2007 (Smt. Santosh Kumari & others v Gyanesh Kumar) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Etah to the court of Hathras or Aligarh.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant are the residents of Nazafbgarh Delhi and are required to attend on each day in the court of the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Etah. It is highly inconvenient for all the family members of the applicant to go to attend the court on every date, therefore, the case may be transferred to Hathras o...
Dasha Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Mau and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The challenge is to the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to the allotment over plot no. 90. 2. The petitioner admittedly purchased the land prior to the consolidation operations and thereafter he was recorded as Sahkhatedar of the plot in dispute. When the Chaks were being carved out, the petitioner is being proposed Chak on the Northern side of the plot whereas he claims to be in possession over the plot on Southern side. This claim has been rejected and the petitioner has been allotted land on the Northern side of plot no. 90. 3. The contention raised is that on the Southern side the plot is bounded by a road and, therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to claim his share on the road side frontage of the said plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that his possession was established on Southern side. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey contends t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »