Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel, for the Staterespondents and Sri C.K. Parekh learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.2. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 contested the election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Fatehpur Sikri held on 22 nd of December, 2010. The counting of votes took place on 22 nd of December, 2010. In the counting both the candidates received 33 votes each. The Returning Officer, after informing both the candidates that result of the election shall be declared by draw of lot, asked a minor girl of five years to take out one slip out of two containing name of the candidates. It was also informed that the name slip of the candidate which shall remain in the box after the draw of lot shall be declared elected. The names of both the candidates (petitioner and respondent No.4) were written down on two slips and the minor girl took out one of the slips which contained the name of Ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ratan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent.2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner challenged the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.5 Sitapur in Revision No. 2 of 2007 ( Surjeet Singh and others v. Nand Kishore and others) thereby rejecting the application for amendment in written statement. 3. Undisputed fact of the present case are that the landlord/opposite party no.2 to 8 filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of Judge Small Causes Sitapur, registered as SCC Suit NO. 17 of 1992 ( Sri Roop Kishore Mehrotra and others v. Amreek Singh and others ), on the ground that defendants/ petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent and for illegal sub-letting the property in dispute.4. Judge, Small Causes Sitapur vide order dated 26.3.2007 allowed and decreed the suit . 5. Aggrieved by the same , the petitioners filed SCC Revision No. 2 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. The office of the Additional Solicitor General of India accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India. The State Bank of India is represented by Shri Arun Kumar Mishra.2. The petitioner was selected as a Probationary Officer in the selections held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. CRPD/PO/2008-09/04 published by the State Bank of India in unreserved category. By this writ petition he has prayed for quashing the communication of Assistant General Manager (Human Resources), State Bank of India, Human Resource Department, Local Head Office, Bandra East, Mumbai dated 18.5.2009, intimating him that he is medically unfit for the appointment in the bank as Probationary Officer. In the medical examinations conducted on the person of the petitioner, it was reported by Dr. Atul Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, State Bank of India, Varanasi vide report dated 25.4.2009 in columns 15 and 16 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate and Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. Nobody is present for the respondent no. 4.2. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 31.01.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1987 dismissing the appeal. Before adverting to the facts of the petition it is appropriate to record that the present writ petition was dismissed under a judgment dated 08 th May, 2007.3. The petitioner made a review application, which was granted by the Hon'ble Judge on 06 th February, 2009 and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Hence this petition has again been placed for hearing before this Court. 4. Fact in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:5. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed by 18 tenure holders, who claim that the land had been allotted to them pursuant to the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The date of allotment is 9th June, 1984. This allotment came to be objected by one Faggan Singh and others on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for any allotment.3. The proceedings were, therefore, initiated for cancellation of the said leases executed in favour of the petitioners under the Provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 27 of the 1960 Act. For ready reference Sub Section (4) of Section 27 is gainfully reproduced hereinbelow:-"The Commissioner may of his own motion and shall on the application of any aggrieved person enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular he may after notice to the person in whose favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. We have heard Shri P.N. Saxena assisted by Shri Amit Saxena for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri S.N. Fazal appears for Smt. Nisha Kumari, the newly impleaded respondent No.4.2. The petitioner contested the elections to the office of the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Thakurdwara reserved for Other Backward Class persons in October, 2006. She was elected for five years and assumed the office.3. Smt. Nisha Kumari-respondent No.4, the defeated candidate made a complaint to Tehsildar, Tehsil Thakurdwara, Distt. Moradabad alleging that the caste certificate dated 10.10.2005 issued to the petitioner certifying that she belongs to Bhisti caste included in the list of OBC in the State of U.P. notified under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC, ST and OBC) Act, 1994 as amended in 2001, and in the year 2002 is fraudulent as she is not of Bhisti caste by birth. Since the Tehsildar Tehsil Thakurdwara, Moradabad had issued the certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be the life members of the society and the petitioners no. 3 and 4 who are applicants for life membership, but whose induction has been rejected under the impugned order, have come up before this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 8.8.2008 and the order dated 1 st October, 2005 which essentially relates to the rejection of the claim of 72 members to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Baseda Khurd, District Bijnor.2. The background in which the dispute has arisen is that the last undisputed elections were held on 23.2.2000 in which one Meghraj Singh was elected as the President and Niranjan Singh was elected as the Manager. The said elections were recognised and the signatures were accordingly attested by the District Inspector of Schools. The tenure of the Committee of Management was three years. A proposal was made for extending the te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party- Union of India.2. The petitioner has challenge the order impugned dated 3 rd of March, 2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011, whereby the petitioner's bail has been cancelled.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted bail on 13 th of January, 2011 on the ground that the prosecution had not collected any evidence to connect him with the crime. He is implicated in the case mainly on the ground that the house in which Pan Masala/Gutkha factory was running, is owned by the petitioner. The court below in granting bail held that there is no prima-facie, evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Thereafter, the respondent-Union of India moved an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly on the ground that the petitioner has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A. G. A.2. Since the facts of the case are not in dispute, this application is being finally disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties without calling for any counter affidavit. 4. The facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed along with the application are that on the basis of a first information report lodged by the applicant as Case Crime No. 383 of 2010; State Versus Umardaraj under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against Umardaraj and four other persons. As per the allegations made in the first information report Seeba, daughter of the applicant was married to Umar Daraj on 21.10.2008. In the said marriage the applicant had spent about Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty lacs) but her husband, the petitioner and the other accused no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. These three writ petitions are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority. They have been clubbed and heard together.2. Writ Petition No. 832 of 1984 has been made the leading case. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.3. Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the petitioners of the leading case being case No. 436 of 1974 culminated in an order dated 31 st March, 1982 wherein 421.47 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioners filed appeal No.33 of 1982, which was connected with appeal no. 34 of 1982. Both the appeals have been dismissed under common order of the Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, Pilibhit dated ...
Tag this Judgment!