Court : Uttaranchal
..... that the initiation and holding of a summary court-martial under section 116 of the army act, 1950 is referable to the commanding officer of the corps/department/detachment, to which the accused belongs.13. learned counsel for the appellant then invited our attention to sections 118, 119 and 120 of the army act, 1950.sections 118 and 119 aforementioned relate to the powers of general and summary general court- martials, and section 119 delineates the powers of a district court-martial. the relevance of the present controversy is only to section 120 of the army act, 1950, which defines the powers of a summary court-martial. section 120 of the army act, 1950 is being extracted hereunder:120.- powers of summary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(3)SLJ196(NULL)
..... , 1954, in such circumstances. it is further alleged that no evidence whatsoever was found in the proceedings for summary of evidence, implicating the petitioner nor thereafter new material was there on the basis of which fresh show cause notice under section 19 of army act, 1950 or order under rule 14 of army rules, could have been issued. it is also alleged in the writ petition that recovery of theft money was made from gnr udai singh on 5.9.1983, while he got admitted on 12.9.1983, complaining ..... took time in filtering the evidence to scrutinise role of officers, does not appear to be plausible. had the petitioner been found guilty in inquiry, instead of holding court martial. respondent no. 2 could have proceeded under section 19 of the army act, 1950 read with rule 14 of the army rules, 1954, but it is not the case here. the officer along with other officers was not found guilty rather he was informed that the proceedings are closed against him. not only this, he was promoted to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
..... anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the tribunal shall have the power to--(a) substitute for the findings of the court martial, a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh for the offence specified or involved in such findings under the provisions of the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be; or(b) if ..... remit the whole or any part of the sentence, with or without conditions;(ii) mitigate the punishment awarded;(iii) commute such punishment to any lesser punishment or punishments mentioned in the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be;(c) enhance the sentence awarded by a court martial:provided that no such sentence shall be enhanced unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
..... anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the tribunal shall have the power to--(a) substitute for the findings of the court martial, a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh for the offence specified or involved in such findings under the provisions of the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be; or(b) if ..... remit the whole or any part of the sentence, with or without conditions;(ii) mitigate the punishment awarded;(iii) commute such punishment to any lesser punishment or punishments mentioned in the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be;(c) enhance the sentence awarded by a court martial:provided that no such sentence shall be enhanced unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of informant Bhagat Singh Aswal, brother of the deceased. In his complaint (Ext. Ka-5) submitted to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar on 26.08.1995, the informant stated that he was working as Rifleman in the Indian Army and was a resident of village Jamal (Dabralsuin). It was also stated that his sister was married to Yogambar Singh s/o Govind Singh, resident of village Teel (Bhawansi), Post Bhawansi, Patti Ajmer (Valla) in the month of April 1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that one year after her marriage, the sister of the informant was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately his sister was told to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and brother. The informant in his complaint stated that being a soldier he could not afford to fulfill such a huge demand and as a result, his sister was done away with on 14.07...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2009Utr19
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. Since there is a common question of law involved in all the petitions, therefore, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By means of all these petitions, the petitioners have initially challenged the validity of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 dated 22-10-2007 promulgated by the Governor of Uttarakhand by amending Section 29 of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as 'Principal Act, 2003'). Thereafter, the aforesaid Ordinance was replaced by an Amendment Act known as Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Annexure-6) of Writ Petition No. 1203 (M/B) 2007) by which the tenure of the Management Committee of the Co-operative Societies and its elected members has been reduced from 5 years to 2 years. Consequently, the respondent No. 4 appointed the Administrators in all the Cooperative Societies at all levels in the State of Ut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. The above two appeals, arising out of judgment and order dated 07.06.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ 1st FTC, Hardwar were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant stood trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of 5 year old child (Arun) son of her husband's brother Pappu.3. Hari Chand, grand father of Arun (deceased) submitted an application (exhibit Ka 1) before SHO, Police Station - Mangalore on 26.06.1998 stating that his grand son Arun was playing in the courtyard on 22.06.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. At that time accused Koshal, wife of Vinod Kumar, sprinkled kerosene oil on him and set him on fire. According to him, occurrence was witnessed by Ramesho, wife of Mahendra Singh, brother of the complainant and his nephew Kanwar Pal Singh. They extinguished the fire. Arun was removed to the hospital, however, he died in Lok Priya Hospital, Meerut on 24.06.1998. The motive f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC719(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, in case No. 54 of 1998, whereby vacancy has been declared in respect of the property No. 53H, ground floor, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially a tenant in the aforesaid property consisting of two rooms and a bathroom, in the ground floor, since 1991. Thereafter, an agreement for sale of the said property was allegedly entered between the petitioner Arun Kumar and respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar and an amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid to him as earnest money on 30th August, 2001. On said date, a receipt-cum-possession letter was issued by the respondent No. 2, a copy of which is Annexure-1 filed with the petition. However, respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by Prescribed Authority, Kotdwar, District-Pauri Garhwal in Rent Case No. 11 of 2005 Ratnamber Dutt Joshi and others vs. Abdul Raseed (Deceased) and others and in connected cases and judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the District Judge, Pauri in Misc. Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2007 and in the connected appeals. 2. Since in all these writ petitions, common question of law is involved to be decided by this Court therefore, all these petitions have been consolidated and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ petition no. 144 of 2010 (M/S) shall be the leading case. 3. Brief facts of the case, which emerge out from the record of writ petition no. 144 of 2010 (M/S), are that petitioner and one Digambar Prasad Kainthola were partners in the firm known as M/s Kainthola Medicos, since its inception in the year 1984. The firm is the tenant in the shop situated at Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal arises cut of the order dated 26.8.2006, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 4, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the appellant for appointment of Receiver/Administrator for managing the affairs of Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School and Guru Harkishan Public School.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 5, the Guru Singh Sabha Shiksha Samiti (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Society', for short), is a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, having Registration No. 81/78-79 and has its Head Office at Bharatpur. According to the Constitution of the Society, the object of the Society is to impart education to children, to teach them discipline, to encourage feeling of nationalism amongst them, to teach them about the Punjabi language, etc. For this purpose, the Society runs two schools in Bharatpur, namely the Guru Nanak Senior Secondary...
Tag this Judgment!