Allahabad Court January 2015 Judgments
Sohan Lal and Another Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No.9 ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. It is true today, as it was ever before, that no person can look after the welfare of the children in a better way than parents. Destiny, however, has its own ways to mould the course of life of a person. The present case concerns itself with the welfare of a child who appears to be deprived of the natural care and protection of his parents for the reasons beyond his control. The State, the Society and its Institutions, must, therefore, work in tandem to salvage the situation so that the luckless child is empowered to swim through the rough tides, where destiny has left him unattended. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the validity of the judgement dated 22.10.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.138 of 2014, whereby application made by the applicants seeking court's permission to give Master Ansh in adoption as required under Section 9 (4) and (5...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. U.P. Power Corporation and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Vijay Lakshmi, J. This intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a driver with respondent-corporation U.P.S.E.B. by the order dated 23.3.1977 of the then Executive Engineer. However, his service alongwith services of some other employees were subsequently terminated on 17.11.1979. Aggrieved by the order of termination the Bijli Karmchari Sangh including the appellant filed writ petition no. 1642 of 1979 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.1989 and the following order was passed : "In view of the above these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties terminating the service of the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners would be treated in the service with effect from the date when their services were terminated illega...
Tag this Judgment!New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulab Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel representing the claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the correctness of the award dated 25.09.2014 passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Court No.13, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1279 of 2011, Gulab Singh and another Vs. Smt. Parul Sharma and another whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,05,000/- along with interest to the claimants against the Insurance Company. Relevant facts giving rise to the claim petition are that in the forenoon of 02.10.2011 Govinda (deceased) was travelling by private bus no. DL IP 8059 along with other passengers which was going from village Jaiee to Meerut city. At about 11.30 a.m. the bus stopped near Jail Chungi Chopla for the passengers to deboard. The deceased while trying to step down from the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Chawali Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Ajai Lamba, J. 1. I had the privilege of going through the judgment prepared by Hon'ble Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Hon'ble Justice A.P.Sahi. 2. I fully agree with the answers given by my brother Justice A.P.Sahi to issues (A),(B),(C),(D),(E),(G) and (H), as encased in the judgment. 3. With all humility, however, I differ on the answer recorded in context of Issue (F). I would like to record my separate reasons and findings on the issue. 4. For ready reference, Issue (F) reads as under: "The status of final judgment unsigned by one of the Judges of the Bench and the conflict of opinion and its reference by Hon'ble the Chief Justice." 5. The issue has been framed in context of Questions 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18, as they are related. Before making an endeavour to address the issue, the sequence of events is required to be reiterated in brief. 6. The relevant facts to be noted in this context are that the Bench constituted of Hon'ble Justice Amar Saran and Hon'ble Justice Shri Narayan S...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gaur Arunima Impex International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-U.P. Housing And Development Board and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. U.P. Housing and Development Board published an advertisement on 3rd July, 2008 for sale of four plots under the category, institutional land demarcated for office only. Petitioner, before this Court, took part in the auctions, which were held on 15th July, 2008 and offered the highest bid for plot no.14/I.N.S./Office-3 on 45 meter Road,measuring 1584.52 square meters. Bid offered by the petitioner was approved and allotment of the plot was made in his favour under letter dated 12th August, 22008 for total price of Rs. 10,78,26,586/-. Petitioner deposited only 10% of the bid money. No installments were deposited thereafter for the reason that three plots situated over Khasara No. 433/2, Village Prahlad Garhi were submit matter of suit pro...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Om Prakash-VII, J. 1.Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 : "This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 b...
Tag this Judgment!Rehmat Ullah Khan Vs. Bundelkhand University and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2015
Writ- A No. 31744 of 2011, Rehmat Ullah Khan Vs. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, and others, was preferred by the petitioner- appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. By the said order the petitioner- appellant had been informed that no amount is admissible to him towards gratuity and that entire amount, which was liable to be paid, had already been paid to him. The court after noting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and of the counsel for the respondent Bundelkhand University held that:- "Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a social welfare legislation and same deserves liberal interpretation and as per the same as pension scheme which is applicable in the University concerned does not provide for payment of gratuity, same cannot be compared with gratuity payable under the Act, in view of this as Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has a over-riding effect, the University ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sailesh Vinayak Deshpandey and Another Vs. Union Of India and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
The two petitioners, who had responded to Advertisement No.2 issued by the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi1 on 29 August 2013 for one post of Assistant Professor in Kayachikitsa, Ayurveda, have filed this petition for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent no.7-Dr. Divya Kajaria on the said post. Ordinance 11A of the Ordinances of University deals with the procedure for appointments of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors and in order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, it is necessary to first examine it. The Ordinance requires the candidates to upload their applications online through a software available on the portal "Recruitment and Assessment Cell"2 on the website of the University. It also provides for short-listing of the candidates for interview. This is initially done at the department level by the 'Faculty Affairs Committee - Level-I'3 and finally by the 'Faculty Affairs Committee - Level-II'4. The constitution of FA...
Tag this Judgment!Mehmood Ali Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Akhtar Husain Khan, J. Present appeal has been filed by accused appellant Mehmood Ali under section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 7.3.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 1393 of 1999 (State Vs. Mehmood Ali) under sections 304-B, 498-A, 307, 323, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted accused appellant Mehmood Ali for offences punishable under section 498-A and 506 IPC as well as offence punishable under section D.P. Act and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under section 498A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under section 506 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under section 3/ 4 D.P. Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad has further directed that in default of payment of fine accused...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India Thorugh Its Secy. Dept. of Hom ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard Shri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitrawanshi, learned counsel for the respondents. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner, who was appointed as Constable (Bigular) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') assailing the order dated 16.11.2009, whereby he has been inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 04.03.2010 and 24.11.2010 passed respectively by the appellate and revisional authorities, whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 16.11.2009 have also been rejected. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force on 16.09.2003. The petitioner applied for Earned Leave which was granted to him for the period commencing on 12.03.2008 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »