Allahabad Court September 2011 Judgments
Santosh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
Vinod Prasad, J. I have heard learned counsel for appellant Santosh Kumar Gupta in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2008, Santosh Kumar Gupta and others versus Union of India and another, and on the bail prayer of Smt. Manju @ Dulari Devi in connected Criminal Appeal No. 1661 of 2008, Smt. Kiran devi @ Bua and another versus Union of India and another. Both these appellants have been convicted for offences U/Ss 20,23 and 29 NDPS Act, by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 4, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 477 of 2006, Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau., Varanasi Vs. Santosh Kumar Gupta and others vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.11.2007 and consequently bail prayers of both the aforesaid appellants in the two connected appeals are being considered by this common order. Unfolded prosecution allegations, as are contained in the complaint filed by PW2, N.N. Upadhyay, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B., Varanasi and later on testified by him as well as P.W. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Vaibhav Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
KrishnaMurari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner's father was working as a Constable in Civil Police. He went missing from 31.01.1998. When there was no trace of his whereabouts, the mother of the petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 17.09.1998 at Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. After expiry of period of 7 years, his civil death was presumed and the respondents treating him to be dead, proceeded to sanction and release family pension to the mother of the petitioner and also released Gratuity, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance etc. Mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 28.07.2005 before the Superintendent of Police for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. When no action was taken, another application dated 27.12.2006 was moved before the U.P. Police Headquarter. Vide letter dated 23.06.2007, Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), Police Headquarter ca...
Tag this Judgment!Leelajay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Namit Kumar Sharma for the applicant and Sri Shailendra on behalf respondent nos.1 and 2. Applicant before this Court is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent no.1 is a StateUniversity established under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 while respondent no.2 is the Finance Officer of the said University. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the respondent University on 18.9.2010 whereunder he was required to carry out the work of computerization of the examination department of the University and for the purpose to supply certain material. A dispute has arisen between the applicant and the University because of the order of cancellation of the agreement, leavy of the penalty and forfeiture of the security as per the order of the Finance Officer dated 20.6.2011. According to the applicant the Vice Chancellor himself was instrumental in cancellation of the contract/agreement. H...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Malhotra Vs. the State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2011
The petitioner, who happens to be retired Superintending Engineer, has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers. (1)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09.09.09 passed by the respondent no. 1 as communicated vide covering letter dated 22.09.09 of the respondent no. 2 (Annexure -1 to the accompanying writ petition). (II)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith pay to the petitioner his entire post retiral benefits which remains unpaid since last 06 years of his retirement, along with suitable interest thereon. (iii)Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iv)Award the costs to the petitioner. Vide order dated 9th September, 2009, the Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Government, Lucknow has observed as under:- “LANGUAGE”...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
Rajes Kumar, J. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.07.2009, by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner's mother was an employee, who died on 26.05.2003 and after three years of the death of the mother, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 08.09.2006. The respondent has considered the claim of the petitioner and has rejected the claim on the ground that 1) the petitioner moved the application after three years of death; 2) the petitioner is 39 years old; 3) the petitioner got Rs.4,40,873/- towards the various benefits etc. and there was no financial crises; 4) all the three daughters have got married; and 5) the petitioner was not able to substantiate financial crises on account of the death of his mother. I do find any error in the impugned order. First, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order after two years, secondly, the petitioner moved the application after three years from the dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›