Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ695
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, C.J.1. This Reference under Article 228 of the Constitution of India and Section 432 of the Cr. P.C. made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok by his order dated 28th of Nov., 1979, brings to the forefront the question of the constitutional validity of the Sikkim Criminal Procedure Act. 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Sikkim Act') in the light of the provisions of Article 371-F (k) of the Constitution of India. The answer to this question would finally settle the procedure to be followed by the Courts in Sikkim in respect of the trials of criminal cases pending therein. The circumstances leading to this Reference may first briefly be stated.2. The controversy involved has a close link with the judicial history of Sikkim during the last three decades. Though from the historical point of view the period does not relate to distant past yet the procedural atmosphere is surrounded with such mystery as if excavation of pre-historic culture is needed to unr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Sunil Kumar Sinha, C.J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2013 passed by the District Judge, Special Division-II, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit No. 13 of 2012. 2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the suit filed by the Plaintiff has been decreed, therefore, the Defendants have filed this Appeal. 3. Brief facts necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as under: - 3.1 Bhaktay Gurung, was having two sons, namely, Ganja Bahadur Gurung and Nirmal Gurung (Plaintiff). Bhaktay Gurung died in the year 1965 and Ganja Bahadur Gurung died in the year 1977. Defendants 1 to 8 are sons of late Ganja Bahadur Gurung and Defendant No. 9 is his second wife. Defendant No. 6, Jiwan Gurung, died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by Defendants 6, 10 and 11. Bhaktay Gurung was the absolute owner of the suit lands described in Schedule A of the plaint. 3.2 Eight sons of Ganja Bahadur Gurung, who were Defendants 1 to 8 herein, had filed an ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. Writ Petition (C) Nos.22 and 23 of 2012 were originally filed before the Hon ble Supreme Court being Writ Petition (C) Nos.101 and 102 of 2012 respectively. Vide order dated 08-05-2012 the Hon ble Supreme Court was pleased to transfer them to this Court for disposal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as various issues involved in the cases were of local nature. We may reproduce the said order of the Hon ble Supreme Court which reads as under:- The question raised in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution should, in our view, be first considered by the Sikkim High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are various issues involved which are local in nature and should be considered at that level. Accordingly, let the writ petitions filed by Tenzing Bhutia and Another and Sonam Lama, which have been registered as be transferred to the Sikkim High Court, to be treated as writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Jain, CJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as œthe Act?) is directed against the impugned judgment/award dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred as œthe Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 01 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.8,01,500/- (Rupees eight lakh one thousand five hundred) in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 under different heads and directed the opposite party No.1/appellant to pay the said compensation with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of its realization. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimants/ respondents No. 1 to 3, who are wife and sons of the deceased Bhanu Thapa, filed an application for compensation of Rs.9,78,000/- (Rupees nine lakh seventy eight thousand) before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 01-04-2013 of the Learned District Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi in Title Appeal Case No. 1 of 2010 whereby Appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09-07- 2008 of Learned Civil Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Title Suit No.7 of 2007 was dismissed. 2. The Appeal was admitted by this Court having found that ground C in the Memo of Appeal was a substantial question of law that required consideration. We may reproduce ground C hereunder:- œC. Whether the Court below dismissed the Appeal on the ground that only copy of the judgment was filed and no copy of the decree has been filed along with the memorandum of Appeal after the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was amended by Act 46 of 1999, Section 31(i) with effect from 1.7.2002 is legal and has binding force? 3. It may be relevant to note that when the matter came up for hearing on 13-11-2013 it was noticed that the First App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
1. The controversy in the present petition relates to fixation of seniority of officials constituting the amalgamated force and their consequential promotional claims on merger of different wings of police. Relevant factual matrix extracted from the pleadings of the parties is noticed hereinafter. The police force in the State of Sikkim was governed and regulated by Sikkim Police Rules. These rules were replaced by the Sikkim Police Act, 1969, which came into operation on 15.06.1969. Petitioner was enrolled as a constable in Sikkim police on 12.08.1974. In the year 1978, the State enacted another Act, namely, Sikkim Vigilance Police Act, 1978 creating a separate wing of the police, namely, Sikkim Vigilance Police. Petitioner was absorbed in the Sikkim Vigilance Police on 12.09.1978. In the year 1981, another force, namely, Sikkim Armed Police Force was created under a newly enacted Sikkim Armed Police Force Act, 1981. Separate sets of recruitment rules were also framed under Article 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-05-2011 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi in S.T. Case No.21 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment) by which the Respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution material for disposal of the Appeal is that on 28-11-2003 at about 0930 hrs. P.W.54, PI S. R. Shenga, the O.C., Kaluk Police Station, West Sikkim, received a telephonic information from the I/C Dentam Out Post stating that one unidentified body of a male had been found below the road near Liching Busty, West Sikkim, which led him to register Kaluk P.S. U/D Case No.11(11)03 dated 28- 11-2003 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short Cr.P.C.) and to take up its investigation. 3(i). The investigation led to the inspection of the place of occurrence located at Dentam-Pelling Road at Liching Busty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3259
Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition witnesses a challenge basically to the order dated 12-7-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2006.2. The facts necessary for resolution of the point involved herein may be noticed in brief. On the basis of certain allegations of misappropriation in deposition of electricity charge payment with the State Bank of Sikkim, Ravongla collected by the Respondent, the State of Sikkim (for Short, 'the State') initiated a criminal proceeding against the Respondent under Sections 409/420/477-A and the Respondent, being a public servant, it was necessary at that moment to obtain sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P. C.').3. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent on 27-9-2006 accompanied by the sanction order dated 26-7-2006 (for short, 'the initial order').4. The initial order may be reproduced as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2009Sik6
ORDERA.P. Subba, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Grangtok in Title suit No. 06 of 2006, whereby an application praying for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') was rejected.2. The facts of the case relevant for our present purpose are that the original plaintiff, i.e., the opposite party No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of records of rights, injunction and other consequential reliefs against the present petitioner and others in June, 2006. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit premises was given to her mother Late Libing Anyo by Late Libing Athing alias Rai Bahadur SonamTopden out of love and affection towards his brother Late Dugda Kazi, husband of Libing Anyo as per the old custom and tradition. After the suit property was so handed over Libing Anyo, the mother of the, plaintiff, moved into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2007Sik23
A.P. Subba, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 3-5-2006, passed by the Learned District Judge, (South and West) at Namchi in Title Suit No. 5 of 2004, rejecting an application dated 24-4-2006 filed by the petitioners, seeking permission to validate an unregistered sale deed dated 6-2-1968 (Annexure-A1) by paying penalty in terms of Notification No. 2947G dated 22-11-1946.2. The relevant facts of the case, in short, are that the principal Private Respondent Nos. 1 to 17 herein filed Title Suit No. 5 of 2004 in the Court of Learned District Judge (South & West) at Namchi against all the defendants/petitioners and the Proforma Respondents claiming partition of the suit properties covered by Plot Nos. 47, 162 and 428 situated at Mangmoo Block, P.S. Dentam, West Sikkim from the defendant/Petitioners and of plot Nos. 374 and 383 located in the same block from the Proforma Respondent Nos. 18 to 20.3. The case of the Principal Respondent Nos. 1 to 17...
Tag this Judgment!