Allahabad Court May 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 and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. The abovementioned Capital Criminal Appeal, Criminal Appeal and Criminal Reference arise out of the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 4, Allahabad dated 21.12.2009. 2. The Capital Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2010 has been preferred by the appellants Prabhakar Singh and Kamlakar Singh. The said appellants have been awarded a sentence of death and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 302 IPC. A reference No. 3 of 2010 for confirmation of their death sentence has also been received from the Sessions Court. under section 366 Cr. P. C.. Criminal Appeal No. 298of 2010 has been preferred by the appellants Dev Sharan Singh, Raj Narain Singh, Ram Narain Singh @ Daroga Singh, Narendra Pratap Singh, Diwakar Singh and Baj Bahadur Singh who have been awarded imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC and fines of Rs. 20,000/- each. All the 8 appellants above named have also been sentenced to 5 years' R.I. under section 201 IPC and fines of Rs.5,000/- each. All the a...
Mahtu Nisha Vs. D.D.C. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner contends that in proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, an order of status quo was passed on 24th January, 2011. The contesting respondent no.2 represented by Sri Prabhaker Dubey, filed a revision in which an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 24.3.2011 staying the operation of the interim order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner appears to have moved an objection and the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 21st April, 2011 set aside the order dated 24.3.2011. The result was that the status quo order dated 24.1.2011 revived.3. Again the contesting respondent no.2 appears to have moved some application and the Deputy Director of Consolidation instead of deciding the revision which was obviously against an interlocutory order proceeded to recall the order dated 21.4.2011.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire discretion exercised by the...
Y.C. Trikha and ors. Vs. Ashok Atthi. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Heard Sri Ram Karan Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Manish Mathur, learned counsel for respondents.2. Facts in brief of the present case are that Sri B.D. Atthi (now deceased) moved an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, owner of premises having House no. 72, Purana Quila, Lucknow, under the tenancy of Smt. Y.C. Trikha, and after her death her legal heirs/petitioners are lawful tenants of the premises in question.3. In the said application it is stated by landlord-owner that his family consists following members :-1. Self, aged about 56 years (now deceased)2. Smt. Ratno Devi, aged about 54 years (wife, now deceased)3. Ashok Atthi, ages about 28 years.4. Smt. Kiran Atthi, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Atthi, aged about 25 years.5. Km. Shushma Atthi, aged about 22 years, daugher6. Master Ashish @ Tinku, aged about 3 years, grandson House in question is let out by Smt. Y.C. Trikha when her sons and daughters are minor. However, when they ...
Avinash Chandra Tewari S.O. Late Sriram Tewari. Vs. Additional Distric ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A.Case No. 14 of 2000 where an application under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act (No. 13 of 1972) was allowed as well as the judgment and order dated 19 th July, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Unnao in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2006.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father was inducted as tenant in house no. 328, Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, City Unnao and, on his death, his tenancy is inherited by the petitioner, who is an advocate. Thus, the house bearing Corporation No. 328(old) 361 (new) situated in Mohalla Jawahar Nagar City Unnao is the property in dispute. The opposite-party no.3 (hereinafter known as landlord) wants to construct a Dharamshala over the land of aforesaid house as adjacent house is already available for the purpose, so an application was moved under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act for the ev...
Parmanand Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava for the State. In view of the plea raised by the petitioner, we, with the consent of the parties' counsel, proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally. 3. The petitioner's specific case is that he is the sitting licencee of the fair price shop and though his agreement/licence is not under suspension nor has been cancelled, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order dated 21.4.2011, by means of which the card holders of his shop have been attached to some other shop and thus, the petitioner has been restrained from functioning as fair price shop dealer. 4. The petitioner also submits that earlier an order of cancellation was passed, which was quashed on 17.4.08 and in pursuance thereof, the fair price shop was restored to him.5. This Court has repeatedly observed that unless the agreement/licence of the fair pri...
Radha Krishna and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.2. Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 UCO Bank.3. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 8.4.2011 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) in Case Crime No.1024 of 2011 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly lodged by respondent no.3.4. F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of UCO Bank against the petitioners on the ground that a C.C. Hypothecation Limit for Rs.8 lacs was granted by the Bank on 3.3.2009 to M/s. Radha Krishna Dhyan Chand, Shahmat Ganj, Bareilly. The C.C. Hypothecation Limit was subsequently enhanced to Rs.15 lacs on 15.2.2010. At the time of taking aforesaid facility, the petitioner no.1 gave the original sale deed dated 21.9.2010 as well as a Will executed by Dhyan Chand...
Sudarshan Vs. Tapesar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether bar of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies to grove land or not? Para-1 of the writ petition is quoted below:That the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a Suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and L.R. Act on 30.10.70 on the ground that even though initially the plot in dispute belonged to Purnvasi, Shiv Nath and Vira yet when the Zamindar had given permission to the plaintiffs Tapeshwar and Munni Lal for the plantation of a grove then the plaintiffs alone became the grove holders and after the abolition of Zamindari the plaintiffs alone became Bhumidhars.3. The number of the plot in dispute is 40, area 13 biswas 16 biswansis. S.D.O., Ghazipur dismissed the 1Suit No.359 on 15.03.1986 holding the same to be barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act as consolidation in the area in question had taken place and the plea raised in the suit by the plain...
Asha Saxena Vs. U.P. S.E.B. Ex. Engineer, Electricity Kanpur(N)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the time of argument, no one appeared on behalf of employer respondents U.P. State Electricity Board and its authorities. 2. Late Sri Rajeshwar Nath, the husband of the original petitioner Smt. Asha Saxena, who has also died and substituted by her legal representatives, was an employee of the respondents and by virtue of employment, he was provided a residential quarter by the employer at Kanpur number of which is 7/18, Type-II in Panki Power House Colony, Panki, Kanpur. Husband of the original petitioner did not vacate the allotted quarter even after his retirement on 31.01.1991, hence penal rent was charged and deducted from gratuity, 1pension etc. (Sri Rajeshwar Nath died on 16.10.1996) In Paras-14 & 20 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that a bill of about Rs.1,18,000/- was raised in respect of penal rent on 23.12.1991. The prayer in this writ petition is that penal rent bill dated 23.12.1991 may be set aside and order of labour c...
Bharti and Another Vs. Addl. Distt. Magistrate and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 15, who were added afterwards on their impleadment applications.2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In this writ petition on 08.09.1997, an interim order was passed which is quoted below as it sums up the entire controversy in nutshell:Issue notice. In the meanwhile considering the facts and circumstances brought on record it is directed that the dispossession of the petitioner from the plot in dispute no.312/2 of village Sher Nagar, Tahsil Chhata, Distt. Mathura shall remain stayed until further orders providing, however, that it will be 1open to the respondent authorities to take possession of the area 2.57 acres in question which has been declared surplus from the plot no.72 situated in village Jamalpur as given in the choice of the petitioner vide his application dated 5.6.97 ...
U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Har Prasad Pathak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. s writ petition is directed against award dated 27.10.1998 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.18 of 1998. The matter which was referred to the labour was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No.1 w.e.f. 12.09.1996 was just and valid or not. 3. At the time of termination of services, respondent No.1 was working as booking clerk. The allegation against respondent No.1 was that the way bills from 15.08.1994 to 17.08.1994 submitted by a conductor before the respondent No.1 contained overwriting and lesser amount had been deposited by the conductor still they were passed by the respondent No.1. Before 1termination of services domestic enquiry was held. The respondent No.1 had admitted the cutting and overwriting, however he asserted that it was done by some other employees like posting clerk, senior clerk, junior clerk, junior and senior centre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »