Allahabad Court October 2012 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.
Mohammad Usman Warsi and Others Vs. Niraj Maurya Adult and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. 1. CHALLENGE in this first appeal against final order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'Act') is an award dated 08.01.2001 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 273 of 1998 by 5th Additional District Judge, Unnao/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), wherein in the petition filed for compensation by parents, brother and sister of deceased Imran Warsi, who died in Motor Accident, a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the claimants preferred this appeal. 2. THE brief facts of this case are that according to the claim petition one Imran Warsi, aged about 28 years, a business man having his establishment known as Silver Green, Parade Road, Kanpur, was going from Lucknow to Kanpur on 01.02.1998. When his own Maruti car having registration No. U.P. 78 R-8613 reached at Lucknow-Kanpur road near Singh Hotel, Nababganj Town within the area of Police S...
Rama Pati Singh Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Virendra Vikram Singh, J. 1. HEARD Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi who appeared in support of this petition and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. PRAYER in this petition is for quashing the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 by which petitioner has been given adverse entry of withholding one increment permanently. By an amendment application the order dated 11.04.2012 has also been challenged by which petitioner has been said to be not entitled to get full salary of the period of suspension and a further prayer is for a direction to the respondents to pay entire arrears of salary of the period of suspension also. For disposal of the writ petition preliminary fact is to be noticed. 3. PETITIONER was posted as Executive Engineer in District Kannauj under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). By Government Order dated 28.07.2010 reconstruction of the division under aforesaid Yojna was proposed. Under re- established division ...
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gyanwat and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. 1. THIS appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act(For short 'Act') has been filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd against the award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 224 of 2011 (Smt. Gyanwati and Ors. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.) on 2nd February, 2012 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Barabanki, Court No. 35 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein the petitioner- respondent no. 1 and 2, the parents of deceased Sunit Kumar Verma, were awarded compensation of Rs. 5,16,500/- with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 9 % per annum. 2. THE factual matrix in short for deciding this appeal is that a petition under Section 163(A) Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, the parents of Sunit Kumar Verma, aged about 20 years. Sunit Kumar Verma, being pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-41/H- 2825 driven by his brother Arjun Singh was going to Safda...
Udai Pratap Singh Vs. 4th a D J
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. 1. HEARD learned counsel for the parties. 2. THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of proceedings for eviction/release initiated by them on the ground of bonafide need against tenant original respondent no.2 Munni Lal since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of case no.28 of 1982. Property in dispute is a shop. Prescribed authority/Ist Additional Munsif, Varanasi allowed the release application through order dated 25.11.1982. Against the said judgment and order dated 25.11.1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority tenant original respondent no.2 filed appeal (Rent Appeal No.489 of 1982). The appeal was allowed by IV Additional District Judge, Varanasi on 30.7.1984 and order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside. The order passed by the lower appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 10.8.2007 holding that as 22 years had passed after the dec...
Renu Gupta Vs. Kanti Devi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1. In this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the only question which has been raised for consideration by the parties is as to the validity of the notice dated 27.8.2005 by which the lease/tenancy is said to have been determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. 2. The suit of the landlady against the tenant for his eviction and for recovery of certain rent due has been decreed by the Small Cause Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2012. 3. The court below in deciding issue No.3, held the notice to be valid and duly served. A finding has also been returned that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the said shop and that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. 14.2.2005. 4. I have heard Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents. 5. In view of the involvement of the above question only, the...
Vikas Pandey Vs. Vandita Gautam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 passed by Sri V.K.Jaiswal, III Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Original Suit No.351 of 1997 Smt. Vandita Gautam vs. Sri Vikas Pandey. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff- respondent filed Original Suit No.351 of 1997 against the defendant- appellant u/s. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act ( in brief Act) with the allegations that - The plaintiff-respondent was married on 21.6.1991 with the defendant-appellant at his residential house at Dehradun. Her family members spent an amount of Rs. 4, 50,000/- in the marriage and sufficient articles, gift and dowry was given at the time of the marriage, but the family members of the defendant-appellant were not happy with the amount spent in the marriage and further demanded a car in dowry. However, the plaintiff-respondent explained to the defendant-appellant and his family members regarding ...
Devashesh Singh Vs. State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Ambedkar Nagar and for a direction for releasing the wheat and rice. 2. FROM the record, it appears that Marketing Inspector, Ashutosh Kumar Singh has lodged a report against the petitioner, Devashesh Singh and others under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, case was registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 12.06.2011 bearing Case Crime No. 359 of 2011 at police station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 384 bags of wheat and 350 bags of rice were seized by the Marketing Officer. An application filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for releasing the wheat and rice was rejected against which revision was filed. The revision has been allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ambedkar Nagar on 02.05.2012 and the revisional court directed to release the wheat and rice on executing a personal...
Prem Lata Vs. Director of Consolidation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the transfer application of the petitioner pending before respondent no. 1. 2. To, issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to call for records of revision no. 406/421 Smt. Dayawati and another Vs. Pramod Kumar and others and revision no. 277/794/629 Omkar and others Vs. Ram Kumar and others pending in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur. 3. To, issue a writ, order or direction in the suitable nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to stay the further proceeding or misc. case no. 102/2012 (Smt. Anita Vs. Deepak) during the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 4. award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 2. HEARD Sri Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sta...
Braj Bhushan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. THIS is an application for recall of the order dated 09.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 17943 of 2009. 2. IT would be worthwhile to reproduce the entire order dated 09.01.2012, recall whereof is prayed for. The order dated 09.01.2012 is being reproduced herein below: "All substitution applications are allowed. Proceedings under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 have been initiated against the petitioner on an application made by Nagarpalika, Mainpuri to its Chairman. The proceedings were decided ex-parte under an order dated 19.9.2008 and it was held that the premises was not covered within the definition of public premises. An application for recall was made on behalf of the State on the ground that the order has been passed without hearing the State. The land in fact was Nazul property and, therefore, public premises. This application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority under order dated 2.3.2009 after recording a f...
Kamlesh Dubey and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. IN this cluster of appeals, half a dozen appellants namely Kamlesh Dubey (A-1), Arun Kumar Dubey (A-2) Guddu Yadav @ Bhartendu Yadav (A-3), Rakesh Bharti (A-4), Neeraj Misra (A-5) and Pravesh @ Bablu (A-6) have challenged legality and sustainability of their conviction U/S 148,307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of 2 years R.I. for the first count, 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10000/= and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months further R.I. on the second count and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10000/= and in default of payment of fine to serve 6 months additional R.I. On the last count, through impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, district Sonbhadra, in two connected Sessions Trial Nos. 120 of 2000, State versus Neeraj Misra and others and S.T. No. 121 of 2000, State versus Nirbhaya Shankar Tiwari and others, (both the trials relating to crime number 43 of 98, P.S.Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »