Allahabad Court September 2011 Judgments

Re: in the Matter of Matrimonial Disputes Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT49(SN)(C.No.50)

On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms. Leena Jauhari, Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt. Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R and Tanuja Srivastava, I.G.( Public Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister Sheeba Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor 'Sahyog,' Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A appeared and were heard at length. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of Police on 10.8.2011. Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of Special Secretary (Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An application was also moved by the intervenor 'Sahyog.' This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all the aforesaid advocates and other State officials and that this pro bono litigation is being taken up in th...

Akash Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 9.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and 26.12.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively). 3. Petitioner's application for grant of arm license was rejected by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on the ground that his father was a history sheeter and was involved in various heinous crimes and that his reputation in the area was not good. Against the order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the application for grant of arm license, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed. 4. While considering the application of the petitioner for grant of arm license, the District Magistrate sought a report from the Police concerned in term of provisions of Section 13 of the Arms Act (hereinafte...

Hira Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

RAJES KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retiral dues to the petitioner along with 18% interest. By the amendment application, the petitioner has further prayed for mandamus to treat him as a regular employee from 4.8.1999 or at least from 28.11.2004 and in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 370 (ii) of the Civil Services Regulation to be ultra vires as being hit by Articles 14, 19 and 31(1) of the Constitution of India. The brief facts of the case, stated in the writ petition, are that initially the petitioner was engaged by oral order as Beldar in the Department of respondent no.2 in the year 1987 and after continuously serving three years he was issued appointment letter on 1.1.1990 appointing him temporarily for the period 1.1.19...

Smt. Hirai and Others D.J. and Others

Court: Allahabad

This writ petition was dismissed in default on 19.09.2006. Thereafter, restoration application was filed by the petitioners on 12.12.2006. On 18.05.2011, arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners were heard on the restoration application as well as on the merit of the writ petition. On the said date no one had appeared on behalf of contesting respondents. Thereafter, the matter was directed to be put up on 23.05.2011 on which date also no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents. Restoration application was allowed on the said date and further arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners on the merit of the writ petition were heard and judgment was reserved. Sri Dhanraj, husband of original petitioner No.1 and father of original petitioner No.2, and Haribansh Misra father of respondents No.3 and 4 instituted O.S. No.694 of 1949 against Smt. Munakka Devi, predecessor-in interest of the original petitioners who have also died and substituted by their legal representati...

Pradeep and Others State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1459

1. Heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, earned AGA for the State and Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned ounsel for the complainant. 2. Crime No. 715A of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 PC, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Etah, final report was submitted y the police. Protest petition was filed by the complainant, which as treated as complaint. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses Sukvendra and Amit were xamined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Learned C.J.M., Etah vide order dated 10.3.2007, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners referred criminal revision no. 46 of 2010, which was dismissed by A.S.J., Court No. 7, Etah vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2010. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Only ground for challenge in this writ petition is that learned Magistrate has not examined all the prosecution witnesses under ectio...

SachIn Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Kant Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 58/IX/10, Atul Agarwal Vs. Sachin Agarwal pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Mathura. 3. It appears that the respondent No.2 has filed the aforesaid complaint against the applicant under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') on the ground that the applicant issued Cheque No. 0674988 dated 05.06.2010 for Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 which was payable at Punjab National Bank, Koshikala branch, Mathura. The respondent No.2 tendered the cheque in the bank for encashment but the cheque was dishonored on the ground that there was no sufficient money in the account of the applicant. The respondent No.2 on receiving such information from the bank, sent the legal notice dated 08.07.2010 to the applicant callin...

Sharad Tripathi Vs. Bhishm Shanker Alias Kushal Tiwari and Others

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard Sri U.N.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad and Sri Chandan Sharma for the applicant-respondent and Sri K.R.Singh for the petitioner. 2. These are three applications filed on behalf of respondent Bhishma Shankar in Election Petition No. 11 of 2009. 3. Application No. 48541 of 2010, Paper No. A14 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code (in short "CPC") for striking off paragraphs no. 5, 7 to 10, 21 to 23 and 25 to 34 of election petition being irrelevant, vague and fictitious. 4. Second Application No. 48548 of 2010, Paper No. A16 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for dismissal of election petition for non disclosure of cause of action. 5. The third application No. 48545 of 2010, Paper No. A15, is under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as " 1951 Act") for dismissal of election petition for noncompliance of Sections 81(3) and 86(1) of 1951 Act. 6. Petitioner...

State Bank of Patiala Vs. the Chair Person Drat and Others

Court: Allahabad

1. Petitioner State Bank of Patiala Branch, Rudrapur, Head Office at The Mall, Patiala, through its Branch Manager has come to this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 3.1.2008 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') and the appellate order dated 16.10.2008 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') rejecting the appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute in brief are as under. 3. The respondent no.3 M/s Namrata Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Sought for credit facility which was allowed by petitioner Bank to the extent of Rs. 95 Lac in 2001; increased to 121.7 Lac on 29.10.2002. Respondents no. 4,5,6 and 7 stood guarantor to the said facility extended to respondent no.3. Respondents no. 6 and 7 in addition to personal guarantee also mortgaged their property situated at Kanpur by depositing original title deed and thereby creating an equitable mortgage of property no. 543/9 Block K, Kidwai...

Akash Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ198(NOC)

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings of the session trial no. 1058A of 2000, State vs. Akash Kumar Sharma and others, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Meerut. 3. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh submitted that initially the charge sheet was filed against co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat. The matter reached the court of session on committal, which was registered as S.T. No. 1058/2000, State vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar and another but the learned Additional Sessions  Judge, on the basis of relevant evidence, summoned also the petitioners as accused under section 319 of the Code vide his order dated 4.2.2004. The petitioners moved application No. 17170 of 2005 in this Court under section 482 of the Code, in which an interim order dated 25.11.2005 staying the...

Kripanand Pandey Vs. Varishtha Adheekshak Kendriya Karagar and Others

Court: Allahabad

Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. S. Mishra, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed, challenging the detention of the petitioner in Central Jail, Naini, with the prayer to declare the custody of the petitioner at Central Jail, Naini, illegal and unconstitutional and to set him at liberty, forthwith. The solitary confinement during his judicial custody has also been challenged. The petitioner is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.327 of 2010, under Section 302, 307, 427, 429, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5 Explosive Substance Act and Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahbad at Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad. The first information report was lodged by informant Kamal Kumar on 12.7.2010. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was innocent and he was not involved in the aforesaid criminal case. Further case of ...