Allahabad Court November 2013 Judgments
Bindu Kumar Agarwal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Under challenge in this petition, is an order dated 14.5.2013, whereby the District Magistrate/Collector, Faizabad has issued a direction for attachment of certain properties alleged to have been acquired by the petitioners by commission of offences under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that before passing the order under Section 14(1) of the Act for attachment of properties, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have recorded his reasons for being satisfied that the property intended to be attached was acquired as a result of offences triable under the Act. He has also argued that the only material considered by the District Magistrate to record such a satisfaction in the impugned order are the report dated 13.5.13 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad and the report of the investigating officer dated 29.4.201...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Zaz Fashion Vs. M/S. Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2013
Manoj Misra, J. 1. The instant revision application has been filed by the revisionist, who is the judgment-debtor, against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 11/74/2013 by which the objection of the revisionist (Application No.3 Ga), under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant for deciding this case are that the plaintiff-respondent/decree-holder instituted a suit No. 512 of 2008 against the revisionist, which was decreed ex parte, on 23.08.2010, by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Central-17, Delhi for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,28,005/-. As the judgment-debtor/revisionist was outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, in exercise of power under section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the decree was sent for execution to the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, as the revisionist resided within its jurisdiction, which gave ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Singh Vs. State of U.P., Through Principal Secretary and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri S.M.H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It is contended that the impugned order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, confirmed in appeal and revision vide orders dated 28.01.2012 and 11.09.2012, has been passed without holding any inquiry and merely relying on conviction of petitioner in Session Trial No. 808 of 2007, though in appeal preferred by petitioner before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 2064 of 2011, the conviction has been stayed, therefore, no punishment ought to have been imposed upon petitioner till appeal is pending before this Court. 3. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Brahma Dev Vs., Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2006(3) ALJ, 710 and it would be useful to reproduce paragraphs 11 to 16 of the said judgment as under:- "11.Now coming to question no.1, in my view the power under regulation 39(4) can be exe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Krishna Kumar Sachan Vs. U.P. Lokayukta and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Petitioner Dr. Krishna Kumar Sachan son of Jai Narain Sachan, resident of House No. 1, Nand Lal Chauraha, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is before this Court questioning the validity of the report submitted by the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh dated 27th June, 2013 with a further prayer not to implement the recommendations as have been made therein. Brief background of the case as is reflected that petitioner has been elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred as "MLA") for a period of five years in the year 2007 and it appears that he completed his tenure as MLA. One Archana Singh has filed a complaint before the Lokayukta under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as "1975 Act") and in the said complaint dated 23rd December, 2011 specific mention was made that petitioner Dr. Krishna Kumar Sachan has misused his authority as MLA and along with the said complaint the complainant appended 29 sale-deeds which have b...
Tag this Judgment!Deepika and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2013
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.- 1. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction upon the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is stated to be wife of the petitioner no. 2. Her date of birth is 17th September, 1986, whereas date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 28th February, 1985. Petitioner no. 1 earned her Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) degree in the year 2010. The petitioner no. 2 did his Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering. He stood first in his examination. Both the petitioners are thus major. It is stated that they were well acquainted with each other and, therefore, in cool mind, without there being any influence of any one, keeping in mind their life partner and in order to lead matrimonial life, they decided to marry. The parents of both the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab S. Kazim Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2013
Nawab S. Kazim Ali Khan son of late Nawab S. Zulfikar Ali Khan, Mutawali Auqaf District Rampur is before this Court with following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 64 of Waqf Act 1995 and the order dated 11.09.2013 and 08.05.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 and 3. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to ensure and audit of Waqf No. 1,2,3,4, 5 and 8,9,10,11,12,13,241,187 and accept the contribution to be made by the petitioner to the Board. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 2 from proceeding on the basis of show cause notice dated 12.09.2013. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." Brief background of the case is that Waqf No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›