Allahabad Court August 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.
Sanjay Somani Vs. State of U.P and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Manoj Misra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. By this revision application, the revisionist has challenged the summoning order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the First Special Metropolitan Magistrate (1st Class), Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.2900 of 2012 (Old No.350 of 1995), whereby the revisionist has been summoned under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The facts, as elicited from the record, are that Allahabad Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, on 6.2.1995, instituted complaint, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s Somani Investments and its authorized representative / signatory Sanjay Somani (the revisionist). In the complaint it was alleged that the revisionist issued cheque no.309886, dated 20.12.1994, drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, for Rupees four crores in favour of the complainant as part pay...
M/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Labour Court and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
B. Amit Sthalekar, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.03.1997 as published in the official Gazette on 04.10.1997 passed by Labour Court (II) U.P., Kanpur, respondent no. 1. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the respondent no. 2, Prem Narain was working as Weaver in the petitioner establishment. He was transferred from one loom to another. He failed to carry out the order of transfer. He was issued a chargesheet on 09.08.1991 to which he submitted his reply on 13.08.1991. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent no. 2/workman and thereafter by an order dated 31.10.1991, petitioner's services were terminated. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.1991, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 46 of 1993. As a preliminary issue, on the question as to whether termination of service of the petitioner was according to the principles of natural justice or no...
In the Matter of Council of the Ica of India Vs. R.L. Narula
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. THIS reference has been filed under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) in respect of R.L. Narula, Chartered Accountant. 2. THE facts of the case are that R.L. Narula, Chartered Accountant, failed to pay stipend due to his articled clerk, Neeraj Kumar Jain, as required by Regulation 32-B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter called the 'Regulations' for brevity). The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, upon enquiry, came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and, accordingly, referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee, after hearing the parties and recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondent had violated the provision of Regulation 32B of the Regulations within the meaning of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act read with clause (1) of part II of the Second Schedule to the Act. Considering the repor...
Mukesh Gupta Vs. Special Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. COUNTER affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the records of the case. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that a writ be issued in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.12.2011 passed in SCC Suit No.94 of 2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow, further prayer is that the order for rejection of application for impleadment be also quashed which has been passed on 16.03.2012, another prayer is for quashing of the orders dated 28.05.2012 and 7.8.2012. Relevant facts are that the petitioner is defendant in SCC Suit No.94 of 2010 which has been filed against him by respondent no.2 and is being heard by respondent no.1. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement on 4.5.2011 but did not deposit any amount of rent, damages for use and occupation, court fees, counsels'...
Ramesh Rai Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Ramesh Rai in case crime no.185 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Karimuddinpur, District Ghazipur, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail during the pendency of trial. The applicant is the husband of the deceased, Anita Devi. According to the prosecution case, the complainant's sister was married with the applicant on 22.4.2008, and at the time of marriage sufficient amount of dowry was given, but the husband of the deceased and other in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and she was facing brunt of her in-laws as they were demanding more dowry. On account of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry she was constantly meted to torture and cruelty by her in-laws. The victim was ousted by the husband and other in-laws. The complainant had tried to settle the ...
Bishun Lal Vs. Additional District
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the records. 2. THIS revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow in regular civil appeal no.162 of 2009. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision, are that R.S. No.493 of 2004 was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Court no.34, Lucknow. Plaintiff preferred a regular civil appeal. During the pendency of appeal, learned Appellate Court allowed application for amendment Paper No.A-16 which has been challenged by the defendants through this revision petition. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court shows that a family partition was claimed and adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove specific portion and its location and area and, as such, the discretionary relief of permanent injunction was refused o...
Chandra Kishore Misra Vs. State of Up
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. THE present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Chandra Kishore Misra in case crime no.142 of 2010, under Section 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Bazaria, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail during the pendency of trial. This is a case of fratricide; the applicant has killed his own brother by strangulation. The incident had occurred at about 1:00 p.m. on 26.7.2010 and the first information report was lodged by the wife of the deceased on the same day at about 1:30 p.m. After inquest the postmortem was conducted, wherein as many as six injuries were found on the neck of the deceased. The statements of the complainant and eye witness were recorded; who had stated that the applicant had threw the deceased on the ground and pressed his neck till he was dead. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, the applicant is not a mentally fit person, and...
Lalji Vs. ShamsuddIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. HEARD Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. Notice need not be issued to the respondent no. 1, in view of the order being passed herein. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2001 passed by the Record Officer Sonebhadra in Appeal No.608/677/ 689/406 under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (Samshuddin Khan Vs. Lalji) as also the order dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.146/LR/2000-01 (Lalji Vs. Samshuddin Khan). According to Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1, Lalji (since deceased) now through his legal representatives had initiated proceedings being Case No.6836 (Lalji Vs. Shamsuddin and others) before the Assistant Record Officer, Obra, Sonebhadra, wherein by the order dated 27.04.1992 the land in question comprised in Gata No. 532 area 0.025 hectares has been declared as abadi and recorded u...
Kanhaiya Gaur Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. 1. THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2011, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The learned Single Judge has upheld the dismissal order dated 24.11.2010 of the appellant and the order of the appellate authority dated 30/31.03.2011. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's services were illegally terminated and the Appellate Authority without application of mind rejected the appeal of the appellant. His writ petition has also been dismissed without adverting to various issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has urged that on the perusal of the impugned order of learned Single Judge it is evident that the Writ petition has been dismissed only in one paragraph of the order and the rest of the order is references of the various judgments. He urged that imposing the major penalty of dismissal entails serious consequences resulting depri...
S.P. Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the aforementioned writ petitions, as such, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both the aforementioned writ petitions, feeling aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority punishing them with the punishment of dismissal from service and also with recovery of the amount of damage which was caused to the department by their alleged misconduct, have preferred the aforementioned writ petitions. In brief, the facts of Writ Petition No. 453 (SB) of 2006 are as under:- Petitioner Sheetala Prasad Srivastava was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on 20.08.1976. Subsequently, he was promoted on 26.7.1996 on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax (now known as Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax) on 25.7.2002. He was transferred to Bahraich as Assistant Commissioner (Assessment Trade Tax). On re-designation of post, he was designated as Deputy Commissioner Assessment Trade Tax with effect ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »