Allahabad Court January 2012 Judgments

M/S. Chauhan Road Lines and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Allahabad

Amitava Lala, J. 1. This is third round of litigation by the petitioners against blacklisting of petitioner no. 1 on industry basis. 2. The background which gave rise to this writ petition is necessary to be narrated in brief in order to understand the controversy involved herein. The petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship concern and petitioner no. 2 is proprietor thereof. The petitioner no.1 is engaged in transportation of petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter in short called as ‘IOC’) after having entered into an agreement with the IOC. For carrying out such job, total 20 tank trucks (in short called as ‘TTs’) were used by the petitioners. However, on account of involvement of two TTs, bearing registration nos. UP 80 BJ 9458 and UP 78 AN 2061, in the alleged malpractice, show cause notice was issued by the respondent-IOC and an order was passed on 14th September, 2010 blacklisting the petitioner no. 1 on industry basis and forfeiting its sec...

Bhartu Vs. Nawal @ Chhote

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of O.S. No.449 of 1970. Original plaintiff-respondent filed suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.05.1970 shown to have been executed by him in favour of the appellant. The suit was decreed by 6th Additional Munsif, Meerut on 16.07.1975. Against the said decree defendant-appellant filed Civil Appeal No.181 of 1975 which was dismissed on 27.11.1975 hence this second appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant had brought him up as his son and had earlier executed a registered gift deed of the property in dispute which initially belonged to him defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 26.02.1979, however afterwards he got the sale deed in question of the same property executed by the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was under the impression that he was executing a power of attorney in favour of the defendant. 4. Both the courts below decreed the suit for cancellation of sale deed on ...

Dheeraj Pratap Singh Vs. Chief Election Commission, Union of India and ...

Court: Allahabad

Amar Saran, J. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the Chief Election Commissioner and Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate for the proposed intervenor, the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short, 'the BSP') and Sri. M.S. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. It may be noted that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition in public interest, which was allowed to be withdrawn by a Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice Rafat Alam and Justice Ranvijay Singh on 11.1.2012, after passing the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner when faced with the objection raised by the other side that this petition is not in conformity with the Rules of the Court as the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials and other details as required under the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2010, sought leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with the liberty to file anoth...

Gaindan Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2893

1. The present appeal preferred by three appellants, namely, Gaindan Singh, Om Prakash and Devi arises out of the judgement of conviction dated 22-9-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1982 by which the three accused persons who were tried together, were held guilty of committing offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. After hearing the appellants on sentence on 24- 9-1982 the learned judge directed each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. One of the appellants Gaindan Singh was reported dead and that was confirmed by the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad as a result of which an order of abatement of appeal of Gaindan Singh was passed by this Court on 31-8-2003 as a result of which the appeal survived only on behalf of appellant no. 2 Om Prakash and appellant no. 3 Devi. 3. The prosecution case is contained in the written report Ext. Ka-1 filed by PW-1 Ram Singh who happened to be nephew of the decease...

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court: Allahabad

Ritu Bahri, J. Oral: quashing of FIR No. 57 dated 30.7.2011 under Sections 458, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Kot Dharmu, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) is sought on the basis of compromise dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-2). The FIR got registered on the statement made by Balwinder Singh which reads as under:- “On 27.7.2011 at about 8:15 PM evening time, we were present in our house then from the main gate one motor cycle Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No. PB-31H-6242 entered in our house, which was being driven by Mohinder Singh son of Mehar Singh resident of Bhamme Kalan and on the rear side his son Gurpiar Singh @ Bavia and his nephew Varinder Singh @ Chiria son of Janak Singh were sitting. Mohinder Singh was carrying . 12 bore DBBL gun on his shoulder. Gurpiar Singh was armed with Kapa and Varinder was armed with Gandasa. On coming they attacked my brother Kaptain Singh who was installing peg in the court yeard for the buffalo and Varinder gave his gandasi blow ...

Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank Thru' Branch Manager, Bodla Agra and Ot ...

Court: Allahabad

In the present revision a vexed and pristine question of law with respect to the maintainability of the civil suit for recovery of borrowed sum filed by the creditor bank against the debtor and security vis a vis the proceedings initiated by another creditor bank namely Allahabad bank against the same borrower for recovery of borrowed sum by invoking Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) is involved. The present revision is against the judgment and order dated 27th of April, 2010. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present applicant who is one of the defendants in the suit no.261 of 2008 has been rejected. Canara Bank instituted suit no.261 of 2008 against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and also the Allahabad Bank on the allegations that Mata Prasad, father of the defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.2 who had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 Lakh...

The G.M. (Operation), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Rajeev Shar ...

Court: Allahabad

Manoj Misra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by General Manager (Operations), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, against the award dated 06.12.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 1999 upon a reference made by the Central Government, Minstry of Labour, New Delhi, vide Notification No. L-12012/503/98-1R.(B-I) dated 22.03.1999, which reads as under:- “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of Sri Rajeev Sharma w.e.f. 21.07.1987, peon, Ratanlal Nagar City Branch Kanpur and not giving him permanent employment as per the directions of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. The aforesaid reference was at the behest of the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') who on 10.02.1998 raised an industrial ...

Smt. Suman Vs. Braj Kishore

Court: Allahabad

This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, against the judgement and order dated 16.11.2011 and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed in Case No. 774 of 2007, Brij Kishore vs. Smt. Suman, by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Bulandshahar. Stamp Reporter has reported that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff respondent had filed Original Suit No. 774 of 2007, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been decreed by the trial Court. According to him, since the proceedings were under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act would not be maintainable. However, since it is a matrimonial dispute decided by the Civil Judge in the absence of establishment of Family Court in Bulandshahar, the appeal would lie to the High Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as is provided under Section 19 of the Family ...

Suresh Kushwaha Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Allahabad

1. We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar for the petitioner. Sri Praveen Kumar Jaiswal appears for the  respondents. 2. The petitioner is serving as a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), 501 ASC Bn. and was posted at Patiala. By this writ petition, he has prayed for directions, to quash the order dated 20.7.2011, by which representation made by him and his wife under the orders of this Court dated 16.5.2011, in Writ Petition No. 28176 of 2011, has been allowed after asking him to submit a fresh choice of posting, to the extent that he was permitted to request for posting for any unit located at Kolkatta or Lucknow on medial grounds, to be considered on merits. 3. Sri Praveen Kumar Jaiswal appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner's fresh application for his transfer was considered, and that he has been posted by order dated 20.11.2011 to Kolkatta. He submits that the High Court at Allahabad may not entertain the writ petition, for lack of teritorial jurisdiction. 4. The peti...

Smt. Akila and Others Vs. Nisar Ahmad and Others

Court: Allahabad

1. Small Causes Suit No. 14 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for his possession being restored over the property in question. The suit was contested by the present petitioner. It was admitted to the parties that the disputed property was owned by one Sri Abdul Rashid, the father of the present petitioner and further that Abdul Rashid had since shifted to Pakistan. 2. According to the petitioner she was tenant of the premises and illegally dispossessed, therefore the suit. The defendant in turn claimed title over the property on the basis of the gift executed by her father. 3. The Judge Small Causes framed 7 issues for determination including issue no.6; as to whether the plaintiff was the tenant of the premises or not. After evidence was led by the parties, the trial court answered the issue, with regard the plaintiff being tenant of the premises as he had established his possession and his being illegally dispossessed, in favour ...