Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2008Utr49; LC2009(1)321
ORDER1. This is another suit filed by same plaintiff (against different set of defendants), transferred to this Court from Court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 104 of Patents Act, 1970, after the counterclaim along revocation was filed by the defendants in the suit. (Earlier Suit No. 1 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff was transferred to this Court, against Lamda Eastern Telecommunication Ltd. with different story of infringement of same products. Reference-Acme Tele Power Ltd. v. Lamda Eastern Telecommunication Ltd. 2008 (1) Uttaranchal Decisions 467.)2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the application (6-C) moved under Order XXXIIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by plaintiff, and objections/reply 21-C and 22-C, filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 thereto.3. Brief facts of the case, as alleged in the plaint are that plaintiff-Acme Tele Power Limited has its registered office in Gurgaon and its factory i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2008Utr38
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In a suit filed by respondent No. 1 against the five appellants herein and respondent No. 2 herein (who was defendant No. 6 in the said suit), the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur passed an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the aforesaid plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein and against the defendants-appellants herein.2. Aggrieved by the passing of the said ex parte ad interim injunction at the stage of threshold of the suit by which time naturally the appellants had not even been summoned as defendants in the suit, the appellants filed A.O. No. 412 of 2007 in this Court. By a detailed judgment dated 1-10-2007, the learned single Judge of this Court while dismissing the aforesaid appeal of the appellants, granted liberty to the appellants to file objections to the Temporary Injunction Application in the trial Court. The learned trial Court was directed by the learned single Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal to decide the Tem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Jagmohan Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing a first information report dated 15.09.2009, lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari, on the alleged commission of the offence of abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid first information report was registered as Crime Case No. 97 of 2009 at Police Station Basant Vihar in District Dehradun.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 it was alleged by the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh alias Raj, that his marriage was settled with Sweta alias Ritu, sister of the aforesaid Upendra Singh Maniyari. The engagement ceremony between Jagmohan Singh and Sweta alias Ritu was held on 14.01.2009, whereafter, the parties agreed, that the marriage ceremony would be held on 28.09.2009. On 13/14.09.2009 Sweta alias Ritu consumed poison. She died on 14.09.2009. On 15.09.2009 Upendra S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2006CriLJ654
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-5-1984 passed by the 1st Addl, Sessions Judge, Nainital in S. T. No. 79/1982, whereby the accused persons, namely Tara Chand, Sarafat-appellant and Bhagwan Dass were convicted under Sections 366, 368, 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five years under each count. All the sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that two prosecutrix, who had been residing with their guardians in village Bagga No. 54, P.S. Khatima, District Nainital, went for collecting fuel woods on 23-2-1982 at about 12 noon. Some other villagers including Pooran Masi (PW-4) also went in the jungle for the said purpose. When they were returning with the fuel woods Forest clerk Ram Gopal checked them and detained others but released the said prosecutrix and instructed them not to come again in the jungle for collecting the fuel woods. When they proceeded a little ahead, they were cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1282
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity herein after referred as Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-10-1986, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1984, whereby accused/appellants Radhakrishna and Uma Shankar have been convicted under Section 304, Para 11/34 and 273/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity herein after referred as I.P.C.) and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years (under Section 304, Part 11/34 of I.P.C.) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months (under Section 273/341, P.C). The trial Court directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 21-6-1982; the accused/appellants with common intention, sold noxious liquor, popularly called 'Tumri' (a mixture made of tincture ballad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2012AIR(Uchal)60
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 9-11-2011 (Annexure No.1) issued by the respondent Bank u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. II. To issue any other writ, order or direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. Both the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since pleadings have been exchanged, the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners, are that petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of processing of seeds and Mr. Vijay Singh son of Mr. Babu Singh is its partner. In the year 2010, petitioner no.1 firm took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC481
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order-dated 29.2.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority. Writ Petition No. 514 of 2001 is being treated as a leading case.Facts of the case2. Briefly stated the facts according to the case of the parties are that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Smt. Saroj Jain (respondent in writ petition No. 514) praying for the release of the accommodation in possession of the tenants.3. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the application. On appeal by the respondent, the accommodation was partly allowed. Both the parties have come up in the writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 514 of 2001 is made a leading case.Bonafide need4. Respondent in writ petition No. 514 of 2001 has filed her release application for requirement of herself and her family members stating therein that there are eigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2007Utr32
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. This Second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2004. passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002, whereby Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 45 of 1998 is confirmed.2. Brief facts of the case arc that plaintiff/respondent instituted as suit for ejectment and mesne profits against the defendant/appellant from room No. 248/249, Block. II, of the Geeta Bhawan, Swargashram (Rishikesh). Plaintiff/respondent's case in the plaint was that, it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is a public charitable institution. On 19-1-1990, defendant/appellant was appointed as Technical Officer and to facilitate him to discharge his functions in the said capacity, he was allowed to stay in aforementioned rooms as a licensee. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant/appellant was provided a ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC730
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Seema Sirohi, Counsel for the respondents.By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and orders dated 19.8.2000 dismissing the petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1997 and 28.2.1997 passed by the respondent No. 2 allowing the release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE:-1. Briefly stated, the proceedings were initiated under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the landlord Sri Balbir Singh in respect of the premises within the municipal limits of Nagar Palika.2. The dispute in the present case relates to a shop situate in a part of premises being Municipal No. 29 Dhara Road, Pauri Garhwal of which respondent No. 3 Balbir Singh is owner and the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner was inducted as tenant in the shop by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Tag this Judgment!