Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-2011
1. Two appellants Shashi Kant Singh(A1) and Pintoo @ Amrendra Singh (A2) have challenged their conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and imposed sentence there for 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/-, the default sentence being one year further R.I. and appellant Shashi Kant Singh has also questioned correctness of his conviction under Section 3/25 Arms Act with imposed sentence of two years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, the default sentence in lieu of payment of fine being six months further R.I. both convictions and sentences imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Ist, Ghazipur in the impugned judgement and order dated 14.11.2008 passed in S.T. No.47 of 2007, State Shashi kant Singh and others relating to Crime No.642 of 2006 and connected S.T. No.48 of 2007, State v. Shashi Kant Singh, relating to Crime No.661 of 2006 in the impugned judgement and order.2. Briefly narrated prosecution allegations against the appellants are that on 31.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. A1 and A2 accompanied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-20-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned demand made by the respondent no.2 i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide allotment letter, being annexure -1 to the writ petition, at the rate of Rs.43,560/- per square meter and further sought for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to issue a revised allotment letter at the rate of Rs.39,600/- per square meter, as it was done in the case of other successful allottees of the scheme. 3. According to the petitioner, she was found successful in a draw of lots held on 08 th November, 2008 in respect of the plot, being Plot No. G-48, Sector-44, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar). However, in spite of repeated requests no allotment letter was issued to her.4. Ultimately, on 30 th September, 2010 such allotment letter was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.43,560/- per square meter though, according to the petitioner, in the said locality i.e. Sector 44 price of land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-23-2011
1. Heard Sri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.2. Petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay medical reimbursement of Rs. 17,146/- and 6,570/- along with interest without insisting on the original medical vouchers and further to conduct a high level enquiry to find out the person responsible for loss of original bill vouchers.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under.4. Petitioner, Dr. S.P. Mittal, retired from the post of Director of Education, U.P. on 31.7.1990 having attained the age of superannuation. After retirement, he settled at Delhi and having exercised his option, which has been accepted by the respondents, he is drawing pension at Delhi through Pay and Accounts Office, U.P. Bhawan, New Delhi. Presently, petitioner is above 78 years of age. He and his wife are chronic patients of Diabetes and Asthma, hence, undergoing regular medical treatment at Delhi. The med...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-2011
1. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement. The learned counsel for the parties advanced the arguments with reference to the writ petition no.378 of 2004 and submitted that the same shall hold good with the connected writ petition. Therefore, the facts from the file of writ petition no.378 of 2004 are noted for consideration. 2. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are medical doctors by profession and are husband and wife. The petitioner no.1 is a qualified orthopaedic surgeon and is also Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Prakash Hospital at D-12, 12-A and 12-B, Sector 33, NOIDA. He is also running his clinic from his residence besides the fact that he is operating the patients in the said Hospital. Both the petitioners claim that they are regular income tax assessee and have been filing regular income tax return under the Act. 3. The officials of the Income Tax Department on March 19, 2002 made a search under the search warrant issued under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-18-2011
VINOD PRASAD, J. This revision U/S 53 of Juvenile Justice ( Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000, ( herein after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by Kushagra Mokhariwale son of a bank cashier Diwakar Mokhriwale for being released on bail in crime no. 247 of 2011, under Section 386 I.P.C., P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. For seeking desired relief revisionist has challenged impugned orders dated 20.4.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra, and order dated 7.5.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Juvenile Appeal No. 116 of 2011. By the aforesaid orders, Juvenile Justice Board and appellate Court, both have refused to release the revisionist on bail in the aforementioned crime number for aforementioned offence. Before entering into discussions on the contentions raised and opposed in this revision, a quick search light on the back ground facts indicate that informant Ramesh Nagvani lodged a FIR at P.S. Hariparwat on 25.3.2011 at 8.22 p.m. aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-21-2011
Ashok Bhushan, J. Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land ...
Tag this Judgment!