Mohd. Afrul Sheikh vs State Of U.P.Thru N.C.B., Lucknow
Judges: Karunesh Singh Pawar
26 July, 2019·Learned counsel for N.C.B. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of convict...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
M/S Air Plaza Retail Holding ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ...
Judges: Sangeeta Chandra
26 July, 2019·"(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any ...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Smt. Upma Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Food ...
Judges: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
26 July, 2019·Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order placing reliance the show cause notice dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) whereby the explanation has been called from the petitioner for the same allegations which have been levelled against her in the suspensio...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Mohan Harijan vs State Of U.P.
Judges: Karunesh Singh Pawar
26 July, 2019·"Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the prosecution story is false and concocted. The applicant is neither a public servant nor he is ...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Naresh vs A.S.J. Ftc 4Th And Others
Judges: Rajeev Misra
26 July, 2019·5. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private ...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="491a283b202f091a21283b202f">[email protected]</a> vs State Of U.P.
Judges: Aniruddha Singh
26 July, 2019·Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and is languishing in jail since 19.9.2017 (one year and ten months) having no criminal history. Due to heavy load work in the trial court, there is no possibility to get this cased decided in near fu...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Sardar Patel Siksha Samiti,Lko. ... vs Vinay Pratap Singh,Zonal ...
Judges: Dinesh Kumar Singh
26 July, 2019·5. Again, counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment on the ground of his ill-health. 6. Since the matter was directed to be listed today 'peremptorily', it cannot be adjourned and is to be decided ex-parte. 7. In view of the above, the Court has taken itself to decide the matter even in abse...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
U.P.State Road Transport Corp. ... vs Srimati Shanti Tewari And 3 Ors.
Judges: Sudhir Agarwal
26 July, 2019·(English Translation by Court) 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that various dates were fixed and officer who conducted preliminary enquiry was examined, therefore, it cannot be said that no oral enquiry was conducted. 7. Admittedly, Ram Chadra, Junior Station Incharge, was not an eye wit...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Devendra Kumar Singh vs Smt. Vandana Upadhyay And Ors.
Judges: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
26 July, 2019·Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents on an application filed for condonation of delay in filing of present appeal as ...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Dev Brat Tripathi & Ors. vs Board Of Revenue Lucknow U.P. & ...
Judges: Rajan Roy
26 July, 2019·The case of the petitioners herein is that in fact Gata No. 280 was erroneously and incorrectly mentioned in the sale deed dated 27.04.1985 and that the land which was sold was Gata No. 587. Consequently, in 2007 a Suit for cancellation of the said sale deed was filed calculating limitation on the b...
High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.