Allahabad Court August 2011 Judgments

Pandav Sarkar Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1855

1. Appellant Pandav Sarkar, has challenged his conviction under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and imposed sentences of 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. one lac, the default sentence being two years further R.I. recorded by Additional Session's Judge, court No.5, Pilibhit, in S.S.T. No. 1 of 2000, State of U.P. Verses Pandav Sarkar, U/S Section 20 N.D.P.S. Act, PS Madho Tanda, in this appeal. 2. According to prosecution allegations, S.I. Surendra Kumar Tyagi of Border Security Force along with constables Munesh Kumar and Khushhal Prasad were on routine beat petrol on 30.9.1999 and they left border out post Naujalia towards village Kutia Kavar and when they were proceeding on nature trail/ footpath (Pagdandi) then at 8.30 a.m., in between village Bodhi Bhur and Kutia Kavar, they witnessed a man approaching towards them from no man’s land having a bag in his right hand. From a distance of hundred paces approaching person turned towards east an...

Mukesh Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ118(NOC)

Rajesh Chandra, J. This revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Ballia, in S.T. No. 91/2005, by which the Additional Session Judge dismissed the applications of the revisionists for declaring them as Juvenile in conflict with law. In brief, the facts of the case are that the S.T. No. 91/2005, State Vs. Ajeet and Others was pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Ballia. In that Sessions Trial an application was moved by the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh alleging that as per the marksheet of the high school examination his date of birth is 03.05.1986 whereas the alleged incident, in which he is an accused, took place on 11.10.2001. It was further alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 11.10.2001 the age of the revisionist Mukesh Kumar was 15 years and 159 days. It was claimed that in view of the provisions of "The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of...

The U.P. Motor Transport Association, Kanpur Vs. the Chairman, I.R.D.A ...

Court: Allahabad

Heard Sri S.P. Sharma and Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. Motor Transport Association which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner's case is that petitioner association represent/ventilate common grievances for protection of interest of members of the association. The motor vehicles used by the members of the petitioner association for transportation have been insured with the respondent Insurance Companies and they have been paying annual insurance premium towards damages claim and third party claim. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing the notification dated 15.4.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) exercising power vested in it under Section 14(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority A...

icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deep Chand @ Pappu an ...

Court: Allahabad

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order/Award dated 27.04.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 915 of 2009 filed by the claimant-respondent no. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 12.3.2009 at about 8.30 O'clock. 2. The case of the claimant-respondent no. 1 was that on 12.3.2009, the claimant-respondent no.1 as Driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. UP 120011 was taking the said Truck from Mawana to Samaspur Ganna Center; and that when the said Truck reached near village-Ganeshpur then the front wheel of the said Truck suddenly came out of the Truck, and the Truck became uncontrolled and collided with Truck bearing Registration No. UP 23 C1645 coming from the opposite direction; and that as a result of the said accident, the claimant-respondent no.1 sustained serous injuries; and that the age of the clai...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pooja and Others

Court: Allahabad

The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order/ Award dated 20.7.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 838 of 2008 filed by the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 4 on account of the death of Umesh Bisht in an accident which took place on 25th June, 2008 at about 1.45 A.M. The case of the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 4 was that on 25th June, 2008 at about 1.45 A.M., the said Umesh Bisht alongwith his friend Sudheer Yadav was coming from Ghaziabad on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP 15 Q5814 and going towards his house situated in Meerut; and that as soon as they reached opposite G.I.C. Inter College, Meerut, a Truck bearing Registration No. UP 11 T2492 came from behind in a very rash and negligent manner, and hit the said Motorcycle, as a result of which both the said Umesh Bisht and his friend Sudheer Yadav fell on the road and sustained serious injuries, and on...

irfan Alias Saddam Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

S.S. Chauhan, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. Through this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 29.6.2011, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal of the revisionist on technical ground that revision is maintainable. The facts in brief are that in reference to an incident which took place on 25.3.2010 at about 7:30 A.M., an FIR was lodged on the same day at 8:15 A.M. by complainant Mohd. Riyaz Khan against Naim Ullah, Imran alias Immi and the present accused revisionist. The revisionist was produced before the Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur as he pleaded minority in respect of himself. The evidence was adduced before the learned Magistrate and after conclusion of the evidence, learned Magistrate proceeded to hold that the revisionist was about 22 years of age at the time of occurrence. Aggrieved with the said order, rev...

M/S. Modern Times Industries and Others Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate T ...

Court: Allahabad

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the validity of order dated 06.03.2009 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, wherein preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, that the proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are barred by limitation, has been rejected, and the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal has been affirmed. 2. Brief background of the case is that in the year 1986, petitioner No.2 had commenced business of manufacturing and sale of wrist watches under the name and style of M/S Modern Times Industries, and in this direction he established Small Scale Industrial Unit at Ram Nagar Road, Kashipur, District Nainital. The petitioners took financial assistance vide sanction of credit facility on 11.12.1987, mortgage was agreed on 21.12.1987, repayment of which was to be done as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Petitioner availed the said facility, since the amount of l...

Ramadhar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ117(NOC)

S.C. Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. This is a complainant's revision against the order dated 28.6.2011passed by Addl. District Judge-I, Auraiya in S.T. No. 1 of 2007 (State Vs. Pratap Narain and others), under Section 364 IPC, P.S. Auraiya, District- Auraiya. At the stage of judgment in the Session Trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on the application of state, found that all the witnesses were not examined by the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the case was remitted to the Magistrate for compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. The contention of the complainant is that at the stage of judgment, summoning order and the order committing the case to the court of session cannot be questioned by any party and learned Sessions Judge has to pass final judgment in the session trial and after committal of the case, the same cannot be remitted back to the Magistrate except under Section 228 Cr.P.C. only on the ground that the ...