Allahabad Court September 2012 Judgments
Ram Niwas Vs. Addl D M
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2012
1. HEARD Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri M. N. Singh for the Respondent No.4, Gaon Sabha. Since all the respondents are represented this writ petition is being decided today itself. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.09.2012 passed in Revision No.4 of 2012 (Ram Niwas and others Vs. Gaon Sabha and others) whereby on the interim application made by the petitioners the Revisional Court refused to grant an interim order against eviction of the petitioners and has admitted revision although earlier the Revisional Court has stayed the recovery on 29.08.2012. 2. ACCORDING to learned counsel, the proceedings under Section 122- B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated against the petitioners but the petitioners were not served any notice and an ex-parte order only on the basis of report of Lekhpal was passed on 23.08.2012. When the petitioners learnt about the same they filed R...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
Ullah Khan, J. 1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing for the respondents. 2. THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of lease initiated against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent no.4 Girwar under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The application was filed on 5.8.1985 seeking cancellation of patta granted by L.M.C. In 1975-76 in favour of petitioner of plot no.1611 area 1.64 acre. Report of the Land Revenue inspector was called for who submitted the report on 7.10.1985, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition stating that petitioner was resident of Madhya Pradesh, however, for five years he was residing in the village in question and was also voter from there. It means that the petitioner started residing in the village in question since the end of 1980. It was also mentioned in the report that the resolution was to allot four acre land of plot no.1916, however, in the patta the plot numbers and areas shown wer...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Kiran Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
Amitava Lala, J. 1. THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that on 20th December, 2010 the petitioner was duly elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, District Ghazipur. Oath of the office was administered to the petitioner on 18th March, 2011 and since then the petitioner has been regularly discharging duties of the office of Pramukh and has never been found guilty of any dereliction of duty and functions of the office as contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act"). However, on account of political rivalry, notice/proposal for bringing no confidence motion against the petitioner, which was allegedly signed by 61 members out of 96 members of the Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, has been served upon the respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. THE District Magistrate, Ghazipur, on the basis of aforesaid proposal, issued the notice/order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Dental Association U P State Vs. State of U P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
1. HEARD Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. and Sri Vaibhav Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government has passed over three photo copies of the D.O. letters issued by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India, New Delhi dated 8.5.2012, 27.8.2012 and 29.8.2012 which direct the State of U.P. to pass necessary orders at the State level prohibiting the sale and distribution of "Gutka" and "pan masala" containing tobacco, in the light of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (hereafter 'Food Safety Act' or 'the Act'), Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 (hereafter regulations) which put restrictions on adding tobacco and nicotine to any food product. As learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India prays for time to file a cou...
Tag this Judgment!Anis Vs. State of Up
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Surendra Kumar, J. 1. HEARD Sri P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, Miss Usha Kiran, learned AGA for the State and perused the evidence on record. 2. CHALLENGE in this criminal appeal is to the judgment and order dated 31.5.1982 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Session Trial No.538 of 1981, State of U.P. Vs. Anis under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC arising out of Crime No.1148 of 1981, Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the appellant Anis has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing murder of Ram Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Fateh Chand PW-2, resident of District Muzaffarnagar by making fires from revolver along with his real brother co-accused Nafis on 14.10.1981 at 1:00 p.m. when the deceased Ram Kumar was going along with Pooran Singh PW-3 on the rickshaw which was being pulled by Shobha Ram PW-4, and was sentenced to undergo impris...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Bhojwani @ Raja Vs. Rajendra Kumar Bhojwani @ Raja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. 2. BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Control (PA Case No. 4 of 1997, by which application for issue of Commission has been rejected. The tenant has moved an application for issue of commission to examine the establishment of shops in possession of the occupant and his sons. A commission cannot be issued to collect the evidence. The Learned Prescribed Authority has rightly observed that the release application is pending for the last fifteen years and the tenant, who is petitioner before this Court is getting it adjourned on one pretext or the other. The factum of release of the shop in possession of the tenant as lessee, is in question. The tenant did not move any application for issue of commission regarding the shop in question, for the release of which the learned Prescrib...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. D.J. Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Shri Ram Dhani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 12.9.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(J.D.), Haveli, Varanasi and also the order dated 4.12.2003 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi. By means of aforesaid orders, issue no.3 framed in original suit no. 1180 of 1998 (Ravi Shanker Prasad Singh Vs. Babu Ram and others) was decided against the petitioner-defendant and it was held that suit is maintainable before the Civil Court. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the land in dispute belong to Raja Ram son of Ram Sumer resident of village Adampur, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi. Raja Ram died on 4.1.1987. Petitioner Babu Ram(now deceased) and respondents no. 5 and 6 claimed their right in the disputed land as heirs of Raja Ram, (deceased). The plaintiff-respondents n...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Nath Rai and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Vinod Prasad J. These two connected appeals emanates from the impugned judgment and order dated 26.6.1982 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in S.T. No.196 of 1981, State Vs. Sachindra and others, relating to Police Station Garwar, district Ballia, by which, learned trial Judge while acquitting third accused Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Swami Nath Rai, has held appellant Swami Nath Rai (A-1) and Sachindra Nath Rai (A-2) guilty under section 302/34 IPC and therefore has convicted them of the aforesaid offence and has sentenced them to life imprisonment therefor. Recapitulated briefly, prosecution allegations, as was stated in the written F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-2, by the informant Harvansh Rai P.W.1, narrated during the investigation and testified during the session's trial by the three fact witnesses Harvansh Rai P.W.1, Shyam Sunder Rai P.W.3 and Veer Bahadur P.W.4 are that, one Rameshwar Rai was the resident of village Amdaria, P.S. Garwar, district Ballia. He had three sons Shiv ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secretary Educ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
1. List revised. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.4.2006 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the petitioner was terminated by the Committee of Management after approval of the order by the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 12.4.2006. 3. The brief facts of the present case is that Gandhi Smarak Vidhayalaya was established in the year 1969, which was managed by the Society Gandhi Smarak, Vidhayalaya Sanstha. The society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The institution was running Junior High School, which was recognized by the education department w.e.f. 1.7.1972 and after the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enforced in state of U.P. The said institution was governed by the provision of...
Tag this Judgment!Raghvendra Mani Tripathi Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax Gomti Nagar L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Satish Chandra, J. 1. ALL the three revisions have been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, against a common order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur, in Second Appeal Nos. 215, 216 and 217 of 2011 for the assessment years mentioned above. 2. IN all the three revisions, the facts and circumstances are identical except the dates and amounts. For this purpose, the assessment year 1999-2000 has been taken as an illustrative year in this order. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Society who imports the coal from outside the State and supplies the same to its Members, who are the brick-kiln owners. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee has imported the coal and supplied to its Members. It is alleged that the Members have collected the coal directly from the Railway yard. Thus, the freight charges were not included in the total turnover and the same were shown separately by the assessee. The short issue...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »