Allahabad Court December 2013 Judgments
Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs. Ravindra Nath Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2013
Manoj Misra, J: 1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 155 of 2013 as also the order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Additional Small Causes Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 22 of 2011 by which issue No. 2 has been decided against the plaintiff-petitioner and the suit has been valued at Rs. 11,13,500/- with direction to the plaintiff-petitioner to suitably amend his plaint. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the instant petition are that Original Suit No. 22 of 2011 was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Varanasi for declaration that sale-deed dated 22.05.2010 executed by the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.1 be declared null and void and that information of the above be sent to the Sub-Registrar concerned. The plaint case was that the suit prope...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
1. The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7 November 2013. By the judgment, which is impugned, the learned Single Judge dismissed a petition filed by the appellant seeking to question several orders, the substance of which is that 10% of the pension which is payable to the appellant has been withheld under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). 2. The charge against the appellant which has been held to be proved in pursuance of an enquiry in which the appellant participated is that when the appellant was working on the post of Naib Tehsildar in 1990-91 he had issued a false certificate to one Rama Kant S/o Babu Ram to the effect that he had rendered service in the Government between February 1981 to June 1982. The learned Single Judge has held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and was fair and proper. Following a decision of the Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Surat Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Cj. On 4 September 2013, a Division Bench of this Court made a reference to the Full Bench, doubting the correctness of a judgment of a Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. State of U.P and Ors.1. The referring judgment notes that the view in Rishi Kant Sharma is in conflict with the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2, Chandra Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.3, and Committee of Management Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.4. Moreover, though there was a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.5, that was distinguished by the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case, according to the referring judgment, incorrectly. The issue, which arises before the Full Bench, is whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case lays down the correct position in law. 2. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted by the State leg...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Surat Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2013
Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Cj. On 4 September 2013, a Division Bench of this Court made a reference to the Full Bench, doubting the correctness of a judgment of a Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. State of U.P and Ors.1. The referring judgment notes that the view in Rishi Kant Sharma is in conflict with the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2, Chandra Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.3, and Committee of Management Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.4. Moreover, though there was a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.5, that was distinguished by the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case, according to the referring judgment, incorrectly. The issue, which arises before the Full Bench, is whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case lays down the correct position in law. 2. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted by the State leg...
Tag this Judgment!R.U. Rinki Renu Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2013
1. Heard Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu, the plaintiff-appellant in person, and Shri B.N. Singh, Advocate for Shri Pradeep Kumar-the respondent-husband, who is also present in chambers. 2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984, arises out of an order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Additional Family Judge/Additional District Judge, Room No.14, Allahabad in Review Petition No.13 of 2012 filed in Matrimonial Suit No.383 of 2011 to review his final order dated 5.3.2012. The Family Judge rejected the review petition to review his order dated 5.3.2012, by which he had accepted the application of divorce by mutual consent filed by both the parties, and had decreed the suit for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a divorce suit No.401 of 2008 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent-husband. A compromise application was filed by the parties in the suit on 19.11.2010, in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Babloo @ Motey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Zaki Ullah Khan,J.1. Appellant Bablu @ Mote has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Bahraich vide his order dated 11.10.2012, sentencing the appellant to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo another one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts in the instant appeal are that S.I. S.K. Mishra along with constable Jwala Prasad Mishra and constable Ravindra Mishra were engaged in picketing during night hours on24.04.2006 on western side of the canal at Village Kakri; that during the operation, the Police party noticed a person coming on the western Bank of the canal from the northern side and when the Police party checked him by throwing torch light, the person turned behind and tried to flee away towards the western side; that on being suspicious, the Police party catch hold of him using force; that when he was ...
Tag this Judgment!indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2013
V.K. Shukla, J. For getting an authoritative pronouncement, as to whether the definition of family as interpreted in the case of Ram Murat and others Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others reported in (2006) (5) ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench for answering the following two questions' (i) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat (supra), defining the word 'Family' as given in Government Order dated 3.7.1990 ( Para 4.7) lays down the correct law specially after the enforcement of order 2004 ? (ii) Whether the definition of family as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004, shall override the definition of family given in para 4.7 of Government order dated 3.7.1990 ? The factual background in which the aforementioned issues have been raised are that petitioner of present writ petition was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1993. Petitioner's son Raj B...
Tag this Judgment!Namrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order/notice dated 28th May, 2013 issued by the Director General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of India to keep the said proceedings in respect of the petitioner in abeyance till the decision of Civil Appeal No. 4766 of 2010 (Rajiv Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) pending before the Supreme Court of India. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of production and sale of the sugar. It has four subsidiaries; they are also carrying on the same business. 3. On 29th June 2009 the Government of Uttar Pradesh/respondent no. 2 published an œExpression of Interest-cum-Request...
Tag this Judgment!Haseen Siddiqui @ Jahangir Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law and ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Haseen Siddiqui @ Jahangir for issuing a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the administrative order dated 22.4.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as order dated 15.7.2013. 2. Heard Mr. R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA. 3. It has been mentioned in the memo of petition that trial of the case was going on in the said court after petitioners arrest on 29.11.2012 by A.T.S. U.P. Lucknow till 17.5.2013 when Learned A.C.J.M. VIII ordered for holding the trial of the petitioner's case in jail premises instead of its regular sitting at Civil Court, Lucknow. This order was passed in compliance to the Administrative Order of Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 24.4.2013. Order passed by Learned ACJM VIII was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.313/13 but in vain and petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. also met the same fate. This Hon'ble Court while disposing of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›