.....prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess poornagiri from thuligarh to poornagiri temple situated at tuniyas in tehsil and district champawat. as many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been constructed by the side of the road approaching to the said temple. it is averred in the petition that in the said stall the petitioner is carrying on business of selling the pooja samagri, sweets and also offering drinking water to the pilgrims. the pilgrims have to take rest after covering a distance of one or two kilometers and the said shopkeepers have, therefore, constructed tin shades in which the pilgrims take rest, during the rains or hail storm. in his tin shade, the petitioner also provides shelter to the pilgrims, as there is no other covered building by the side of this road constructed by public works department. the petitioner has made a wooden shop and tin shade.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the order dated 21.04.2009, passed by sessions judge, almora in criminal revision no. 25 of 2008, hem chandra parihar v. smt pushpa parihar.3. brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 02.06.2004. however, due to the matrimonial discord, since 12.06.2004, they started living separately. it appears that the respondent smt. pushpa parihar moved an application under section 125 of cr.p.c before chief judicial magistrate, almora, for maintenance at the rate of rs. 5000/- per month, she pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself. she further pleaded that the petitioner has means to pay the maintainance and neglected to pay the same. the trial court vide its order dated 16.09.2008 granted interim maintenance at the rate of rs. 1500/- per month, and further directed the petitioner to pay rs. 1000/- as expenses and further directed to pay rs. 100/- per month to the respondent pushpa parihar towards the travelling expenses on every date fixed in the case. against said order dated 16.09.2008, passed by chief judicial magistrate, almora, criminal revision no. 25 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide impugned order dated.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess poornagiri from thuligarh to poornagiri temple situated at tuniyas in tehsil and district champawat. as many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been constructed by the side of the road approaching to the said temple. it is averred in the petition that in the said stall the petitioner is carrying on business of selling the pooja samagri, sweets and also offering drinking water to the pilgrims. the pilgrims have to take rest after covering a distance of one or two kilometers and the said shopkeepers have, therefore, constructed tin shades in which the pilgrims take rest, during the rains or hail storm. in his ten shade, the petitioner also provides shelter to the pilgrims, as there is no other covered building by the side of this road constructed by public works department. the petitioner has made a wooden shop and tin shade.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....case is finally being disposed of after hearing the arguments).2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.3. brief facts of the case are that petitioner-m/s britannia industries ltd, is company engaged in manufacturing/marketing various products such as biscuits, under the umbrella trademark 'britannia', including the sub-brand 'tiger'. the food inspector, took the sample of six packets of tiger biscuits from m/s pawan general store, haldwani on 08.09.2001, and one of the sample was sent to the public analyst, lucknow, for analysis. the public analyst, in its report dated 17.10.2001, reported everything o.k. in respect of the sample, except the fact that the batch number was not mentioned in the sample. after obtaining sanction from the local health authority on 10.05.2002, the food inspector, filed the impugned criminal complaint before the trial court on 28.06.2002.4. the proceedings are challenged before this court by the petitioner on the ground that as per the report of the public analyst, itself, the product in question was not found adulterated. the only violation, mentioned in the report is that as required under rule 32(e) of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 120b i.p.c., pending in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, roorkee.5. brief facts of the case are that when respondent no. 3-additional sub-divisional magistrate, on receiving information, inspected the spot, found that the food grain, which was meant for distribution under the scheme-'kaam ke badle anaj' was found being sold to private persons, who were set to take the goods from the spot. said officer seized the food grain and lodged the first information report. after investigation, charge-sheet, was filed against five accused, including the two petitioners.6. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. it is further pleaded that from the papers on record, there appears no involvement of the petitioners in selling the food grain in private market.7. whether the petitioners are innocent or not, whether there is complicity on their part in commission of crime, are the questions of fact, which can be seen by the trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses. this court, in its jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c. is not inclined to give opinion on the factual.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....jr. div./judicial magistrate, kashipur.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.3. brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.1991, a first information report (annexure-1) was lodged by chief cane officer of kisan co-operative sugar mill, nadehi, against the three accused namely dharamveer, vinod kumar (resident of meerpur), and vinod kumar (resident of malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 467 and 468 i.p.c., which pertains to fabrication and forgery of cane slips, relating to payment of cane price to cane growers. after investigation of said first information report, on the basis of which crime no. 239 of 1991, was registered, charge-sheet in question was filed against the petitioner-rams singh vishnoi. a separate charge-sheet appears to have been filed against other accused including those named in the first information report.4. learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this court to annexure-4 to the petition, which is copy of order, passed by joint cane commissioner, refusing the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. learned counsel for the state, pointed out that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(for short the 'act') by which the r.c. & e.o. has declared the disputed accommodation as vacant and invited applications for allotment.4. brief facts, as alleged in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is residing in a part portion of a big building known as ganga mandir patnawala, haridwar in the capacity and status of a tenant. in the assessment list of nagar palika in the column of landlord there consist the names of rajeshwar prasad @ swami raghuwar das, tarkeshwar prasad, rameshwar prasad, dev narayan prasad, satya narayan prasad and ravi kumar gupta. out of them one dev narayan received the rent from the petitioner time to time on behalf of co-landlords. after the death of dev narayan, other co-landlords never demanded any rent from the petitioner and the petitioner could not pay due rent in absence of correct addresses and status of other co-landlords and their respective shares in the property in question. smt. trapti sanyal, mother-in-law of smt. alpana sanyal/respondent no. 3 also is the tenant in one part of the said premises. after the death of dev narayan no one claimed or demanded the rent from the tenants. it is alleged that the respondent no. 2 in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....120-b ipc. accused paramjeet singh and ramesh were also charged under section 25 of arms act. the trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and evidence, acquitted all the accused for the charges framed against them. the state has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.2. the facts, in brief, are that on 25.05.1995 manohar lal (deceased) and his wife hardeep kaur (deceased) were sleeping in the courtyard of their farm house while pw3 janak kapoor, who is resident of indore and is son of hardeep kaur's brother, was sleeping inside the room adjoining the courtyard. he had come to visit her bhuaa on that very day in the evening. electricity bulb and tube lights were emitting light in the courtyard. in the midnight, janak kapoor woke up after hearing some noise and from the window of the room, he saw accused paramjeet singh firing at his uncle manohar lal while accused ramesh firing at hardeep kaur with their respective country made pistols. meanwhile, accused bhola and khalil gave one 'patal' blow each to hardeep kaur and manohar lal respectively. on receiving the injuries, both the accused died at the spot. the accused left the spot by giving.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess poornagiri from thuligarh to poornagiri temple situated at tuniyas in tehsil and district champawat. as many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been constructed by the side of the road approaching to the said temple. it is averred in the petition that in the said stalls, the petitioner is carrying on business of selling the pooja samagri, sweets and also offering drinking water to the pilgrims. the pilgrims have to take rest after covering a distance of one or two kilometers and the said shopkeepers have, therefore, constructed tin shades in which the pilgrims take rest, during the rains or hail storm. in his tin shade, the petitioner also provides shelter to the pilgrims, as there is no other covered building by the side of this road constructed by public works department. the petitioner has made a wooden shop and tin.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....jr. div./judicial magistrate, kashipur.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.3. brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by chief cane officer of kisan co-operative sugar mill, nadehi, against three persons namely dharamveer, vinod kumar (resident of meerpur) and vinod kumar (resident of malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 467, 468 i.p.c. it is complained in the first information report that large number of forged cane slips were found to have been fabricated in connection with payment of cane price to the farmers. after investigation, charge-sheet in question was filed not only against said three named accused, but some other accused including the present petitioner.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil judge, jr. div./judicial magistrate, has no jurisdiction to try a case relating to offence punishable under section 13 of prevention of corruption act, 1988. it is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been discharged in the departmental enquiry.5. having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT