Allahabad Court January 2013 Judgments
Neeraj Goswami and Others Vs. the State of U.P. Through the Senior Sup ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Mr.Girish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. Since both the cases are based on common facts, they are decided by the following common order. Criminal Misc. Case No.290 of 2012 Through the instant application the applicants have prayed to quash the entire proceedings of case No.11032 of 2010:State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Goswami and others, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 406, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow as also to set aside the judgment and order dated 16th of January, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. By means of order dated 16th of January, 2012, the applicant's objection against the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has been rejected. The applicants have...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
1. This writ petition having been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing and is being decided finally. 2. Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The executive authorities are supposed to execute policies of Government employing Rule of Law as laid down by Legislature and interpreted by this court. The incidental work which is also of equal importance is that those responsible for such execution must perform their job diligently, devotedly, honestly with ultimate goal of best public interest. Those who lack, should be made to suffer consequences. The later part, i.e., the consequences, ordinarily comes as a result of disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with Rules laying down procedure consistent with Article 311 of the Constitution and on the broad principle of administrative law....
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. M/S Shree Girraj Food Products
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent. This is a revision by the defendants-revisionists against an order rejecting their application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the stay of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that their application for rectification under Section 57 of the Act regarding the plaintiff's trademark is pending before the appellate Board. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a suit No. 2 of 2010 alleging that he is registered user of the trademark "Chacha Chaudhary". The said trademark No.1675846 was registered on 7.7.05 on an application filed in the year 2002 and as such would relate to the date of filing of the application. The defendants revisionists have started manufa...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal and Another Vs. the State of U.P Thru Home Secy., U.P Govt. Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. 1. This petition has been filed by accused Iqbal and another under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the charge-sheet filed in Case No. 653 of 2011 (Crime No. 108 of 2011), under Sections 447/427/352 IPC and 3(1)(IV) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kurshi, District-Barabanki. 2. Heard Sri Bhola Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate. 3. Charge-sheet shows that Investigating Officer while submitting charge-sheet did not arrest the petitioners on the ground that they enjoy high level political patronage and their arrest may disturb the law and order. Since the process adopted by the Investigating Officer was contrary to law, notice was issued to Investigating Officer who has filed the counter affidavit. Sri Vinay Chandra, the then Investigating Officer, presently posted as Deputy S.P. Vigilance, Lucknow, in his counter affidavit stated that the accused persons belong to Gaddi Community of Muslims and had tried ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1. Both these special appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 30.05.2012 passed by learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra, J.) of this Court in 18 writ petitions. Since a common question of law was involved in all these writ petitions and the same is involved in these special appeals, hence, we proceed on to decide both these appeals together. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellants were working on Class-IV post as employees of the respondents. The appellants became eligible for promotion to Class-III post (Junior Clerk-cum-Typist) under U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group "C" Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule of 2001"). The appellants were promoted to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in the year 2003 but vide impugned order dated 13.03.2006 appellants were reverted to Class-IV post on the ground that they were not fulfilling the minimum eligibili...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Swaroop Vs. the Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner alongwith his sister, Smt. Nirmala Devi filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 07 of 2009 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") impleading one Sandeep Sharma son of Sri Satish Chandra Sharma and the Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as defendants. 2. The facts, in brief, are that another brother of claimant met an accident on 05.09.2008 while travelling in Bus No. UP 85 E-9372 and died. Hence, claim was filed for compensation. The petition was allowed by Tribunal and judgment was delivered by respondent no. 2, Sri Rajaram Saroj, Additional District Judge, Aligarh, the Presiding Officer of Tribunal on 01.08.2011. The Insurance Company came up in appeal, i.e., First Appeal From Order No. 3515 of 2011. The appeal was admitted on 01.11.2011 and Court passed following interim order: "Heard on the question of grant of interim relief. Having regard to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Th. Its Regional Manage ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Earlier this writ petition was allowed by me on 30.03.2011 without hearing any one on behalf of workman respondent No.1. Order dated 30.03.2011 is quoted below: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the workman-respondent no.1 states that twice he sent registered letters but his client is not responding therefore he is not in a position to argue the case. This writ petition is directed against award dated 15.10.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra in adjudication case no. 57 of 1994. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner - employer terminating the services of its workman - respondent no.1 with effect from 17.12.1988 was fair and proper or not. The dispute was raised in the year 1994 i.e. after about six years of termination of service. Respondent no.1 was bus conductor. His services were terminated after domestic enquiry. Through order dated 6.4.1996 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order.Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. He prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after eight weeks before the appropriate Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution of the applicant, who is a responsible official of the Indian Oil Corporation on the allegation that he had put the seal of the Corporationon the stamp put by the Enforcement Authorities of Weights and Measureson the totaliser counters of three petrol pumpsis nothing but abuse of the process of law inasmuch asthe Indian Oil Corporation has been permitted to put its seal on the totaliser counters independently vide circular of Government of India dated 3rd February, 2000, copy whereof has b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The applicants through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1475 of 2012 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Manoj and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Sihani Gate, District-Ghaziabad pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Central Bureau of Investigation), Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present matter relates to a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and the said matter can be well considered by Mediation and Conciliation Centre. In view of the above, this application is disposed of finally with liberty to the applicants to move an application before the court below within thirty days from today with the prayer for referring the dispute between the parties to the concerned Mediation and Concil...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saida and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of case No. 6188 of 2012, under Sections 498-A,323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the Court of CJM, Muzaffar Nagar. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the allegation made against the applicants are false and frivolous, which has been made for the purpose of harassment, therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed. In reply to the above it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the court concerned has taken cognizance after considering the entire material on record and the only remedy available to the applicant is by way of moving an application for discharge before the concerned Court.All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »