Allahabad Court November 2012 Judgments
M/S Minerva Diesel Engines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.O. Labour Court, Agra and A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Heard Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhansu Narain, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. Present petition has been filed challenging the award dated 15.3.2000 passed by the labour court, Agra in Adjudication case no.82 of 2000. The award was published on 14.11.2000 under Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The reference was made under Section 4-K of the Act in C.P. case no. 334 of 1998 dated 9.2.1999 is as follows:- Whether the termination of services of Technician workman Pravin Kumar Sharma son of Sri Nirmal Kumar Sharma with effect from 22.4.1997 is valid and legal? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and with what other details, if any. The labour court answered the reference in favour of the workman respondent no. 2 and directed the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent no. 2 with back wages and all consequential benefits. Back wages were directed to be calculated at the...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyad Mustaq Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Het Singh Yadav, J. In this Criminal Revision order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba issuing process under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) against the revisionists on the complaint moved by Respondent No. 2 is under challenge. 1. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the Respondent No. 2 (complainant) moved complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J. M.), Mahoba disclosing that marriage of his daughter was settled with the Revisionist No. 1 said to be employed abroad. One Chiddu Saudagar and Kamar Ali alias Tillu Master were the mediators. The Revisionists made dowry demand of Rs. 5 lacs. The Respondent No. 2 paid Rs. 15,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,20,000/- through Cheque No. 636081 to the Revisionist No. 1 and his mother (Respondent No. 4) on the occasion of engagement ceremony held on 22.3.2005. Later on, as per choice of the Revisionist Nos. 1 and 4, the Respondent No. 2 got ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hajra Begum Vs. Mansoor Ali and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. This is a tenant's writ petition. Respondent no. 1 is the owner and landlord of the building in dispute which consists of one room, i.e., a shop, in premises No. 88/373A (New No. 88/390), Humayunbagh, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is not in dispute that the shop in question was initially under tenancy of one Mohd. Ismail. The building was owned by somebody else and purchased by respondent no. 1, Sri Mansoor Ali vide sale deed dated 10.05.1985. He served a notice upon petitioner-tenant sometime in 1999 i.e. after the death of Sri Mohd. Ismail, and devolution of tenancy rights upon his legal heir(s). 4. Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), was filed in the year 2000 vide plaint dated 24.08.2...
Tag this Judgment!Todar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 15th December, 2008 issued under Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. 3. The ground urged in the writ petition is that the order is punitive in nature and was not issued in public interest, and that it was based on an ex-parte report of the Tehsildar which indicated that the petitioner had manipulated the revenue records. On this allegation notices were issued and the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. 4. The counter affidavit reveals that the Committee constituted for this purposes considered the service record of the petitioner of the last 10 years and found that the petitioner was suspended on four occasions and, that there were four other adverse entries indicating that he was inefficient and that he had a bad image in the eyes of the public and, that he was not taking any int...
Tag this Judgment!Kultar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as Charge sheet dated 23.9.2012 in Case No. 623 of 2012, arising out of Case crime no. 260/12 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1) X SC and ST Act, P.S. Mandawar, District Bijnor. Perusal of the first information report transpires that the only allegation leveled by the complainant is that when the complainant was abused by the applicants by caste denoting words and when he opposed the acts of applicant he was alleged to have beaten by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act is not made out as against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case as it was nowhere mentioned that the applicant intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no. 2 within public view, hence the...
Tag this Judgment!Jang Bahadur Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Heard Sri O.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Jitendra Nayak appearing on behalf of the Union of India. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Jang Bahadur Yadav with a prayer 1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order detention dated 4.11.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, District Allahabad vide order no. 9/2011 N.S.A./11 under section 3(2) of N.S.A. Act as well as approval of detention passed by the Registrar Advisory Board U.P. Lucknow dated 28.12.2011 as well as approval of Central Government dated 1.12.2011. 2. to issue a writ Habeas Corpus in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no.3 to release the petitioner from Jail forthwith. 3. to issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and to which petitioner is entitled in law. 4. to...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Hasan Vs. High Court of Judicature and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Ashok Bhushan, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a judicial officer, challenging an order reducing the petitioner in rank consequent to disciplinary proceedings conducted by the High Court. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. Brief facts, which emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; the petitioner, a member of U.P. Judicial Service, was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge in January, 1997. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. In Case crime No. 311 of 2002, under Section 302, 395 and 120-B of I.P.C. a bail application was moved before the District Judge on 9th September, 2002. A transfer application was filed by the complainant for transferring the case from the court of Special Judge, which although was rejected but the District Judge suo ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:- "1. A writ, order or` direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take action in accordance with law against the accused persons in pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 22.12.2009 lodged by the petitioner under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 394, 307, 302, 342, 336, 436, 427, 324, 120B I.P.C. Case Crime No. 1081A of 2009, police station New Agra, District Agra. 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conclude the investigation through any independent agency/C.B.I.. in pursuance of the offence committed by Bhuri Singh and other accused. 3. A writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioners." The prelude to the seeking the reliefs has been stated in detail by the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Radhasoami Satsung Sabha (for short ' the Sabha') which is a ...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Kasana and Others Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
Manoj Misra, J. 1. I have heard Sri Vijaya Prakash for the revisionists, Shri Sukhendu Pal Singh for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 02.05.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by which the application of the revisionists seeking for being released on bail, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), with reference to Case Crime No. 109 of 2012, under Sections 147 /148 /149 /34 /302 I.P.C., P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, has been rejected. 3. The undisputed date of first remand was 01.02.2012 and the police did not submit any charge-sheet by 01.05.2012 i. e. within 90 days from the date of the first remand, accordingly, on 02.05.2012, the revisionists applied under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code for being released on bail by expressing their willingness to furnish security f...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Aneesh Khan Vs. State of U.U.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Manas Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. IT is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Constable in P.A.C., the petitioner applied and after qualifying various tests, he was sent for training at Sitapur IInd Battalion P.A.C. and thereafter he has been appointed. However, by the order dated 19.3.1999, the petitioner's service has been terminated by the Commandant, IInd Battalion, Sitapur on the ground that services of the petitioner are no more required further. No other reason has been given. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General 1, P.A.C., Bareilly Region, Bareilly vide order dated 16.7.1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The writ petition has been entertained and an interim order has been pass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »