Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2010Utr14
orderprafulla c. pant, j.1. this appeal, preferred under section 100 of code of civil procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1988, passed by first appellate court (second additional district judge, dehradun), in civil appeal no. 45 of 1984, whereby said court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1984, passed by the trial court (munsif-iii, dehradun), in suit no. 145 of 1983, and decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondents no. 1 instituted suit no. 145 of 1983, before the trial court, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, not to interfere plaintiff's user over the land shown by letters e, a, d, c, b, f in the plaint map, as pathway. it is pleaded by the plaintiff that his (plaintiff's) house is situated in sewak ashram road, dehradun. on the south of plaintiff's house there is 19. ft wide land, used as pathway. it is further pleaded that plaintiff has laid his sewer line over the disputed land. said land is being used by the plaintiff and his tenants since 1960, peacefully, openly and without interruption. it is alleged by the plaintiff that defendants went to close the disputed land by raising constructions over it. on this cause of action, the suit was instituted.4. defendant no. 1 filed his written statement but later did not contest the suit and suit proceeded ex parte against him. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
nirmal yadav, j.1. accused respondents paramjeet singh, ramesh, khalil and bhola stood trial for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 ipc for committing the murder of manohar lal and his wife hardeep kaur at midnight intervening 25th and 26th of may 1995. accused birsa singh was charged for the offence punishable under section 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
b.s. verma, j. oral: by means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/award dated 7-7-1999, published on 17-7-1999, passed by the respondent no.2 (labour court) in industrial claim case no. 243 of 1998, regional manager u.p. s.r.t.c. dehradun vs. rajendra kumar, u/s 4(k) of u.p. industrial dispute act, 1947. brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no.3, rajendra kumar was engaged as a conductor in u.p. state road transport corporation, region dehradun. on 12-5-1994, he was on duty with bus no. 9626 on route mussorrie dehradun. the checking staff headed by checking inspector of the corporation checked the aforesaid bus and four 12 persons travelling in the bus without ticket. thereafter a charge sheet dated 22-9-1994 was issued against the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 22.10.1994. the enquiry was transferred to assistant regional manager, hill depott. dehradun. when the investigation was going on, another incident of embezzlement and negligence of the respondent no.3 came in light on 20-6-1995 when he was on duty as conductor in bus no. u.p. 18/9620 and on checking 16 passengers were found travelling without ticket. the department on receiving the report of first incident suspended the respondent no.3 vide order dated 26-6-1995 and issued a charge sheet dated 29-6-1995 with regard to second incident of 20-6-1995 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC843(UHC)
p. c. verma and irshad hussain, jj.1. heard sri j. c. joshi. learned counsel for the petitioner, sri r. dobhal, learned counsel for the g. b. pant university of agriculture and technology and learned standing counsel.2. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the salary of the petitioner treating him in university service on 1.10.1973 and correct the last pay certificate accordingly in case his services are transferred to any other university and pay the salary of difference for the period 1.10.1973 to 30.6.1978 and thereafter. he further sought a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pay the petitioner's salary ignoring the resolution no. 9 dated 9.9.1997 and prayed for quashing of the said resolution contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. by the impugned office order dated 27.11.1997, the date of the absorption of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1973 has been changed to 30.6.1978. this office order is passed on the resolution of the board of management of the g. b. pant university of agriculture and technology, pant nagar, district udham singh nagar. learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this office order on the ground that the petitioner was initially appointed as a senior research assistant group-i in the institute of agricultural sciences, kanpur. he remained with u. p. government till he joined in g. b. pant university, thereafter, his services were permanently .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2002)1UPLBEC8
a. a. desai, c.j. and m. c. jam,0j.1. in this bunch of petitions, the common question involved is whether the student, above the age of 25 and the students who have been admitted provisionally could contest election of the student council.2. the learned counsel appearing in these petitioners have urged that the students have the right to contest election. the rules or instructions are arbitrary making discrimination by carving out various clauses which are not based on intelligible differentia. we heard the group of lawyers at length.3. undisputedly election of the student council is a secondary activity in the academic sphere, may be university or college. undisputedly further, this right is not conferred on the student by statute either. the university or college authorities are competent to regulate this ancillary activity. while regulating, if they are imposing certain prohibitions or restrictions on the particular category of students namely, who are above the age of 25 and those admitted provisionally, we do not see any irrationality or violation of any fundamental right since the election is provided by the university or college on their own volition. no right is involved of the students. the petitions are therefore, without any merit.4. we dismiss all the petitions. interim order dated 21.9.2000 passed in writ petition no. 1835 ms/2001 is hereby vacated.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2663
dharam veer, j.1. this appeal, under section 374(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as cr.p.c.), has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 10-6-1987 passed by sessions judge, tehri garhwal in sessions trial no. 31 of 1986, state v. deep raj, whereby the learned sessions judge convicted the appellant under section 376, i.p.c. and awarded for 7 years r.i. as well as under section 376/511 of i.p.c. and awarded for 7 years r.i. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the prosecution story in brief is that km. kanta, the victim, is a resident of mayapuri, delhi. her mother on the faith over accused/appellant sent her daughter along with the appellant to hardwar in connection with the treatment of chronic ailment of cough from which the prosecutrix was suffering from her childhood. on 30-6-1986, the prosecutrix in the company of the accused came from delhi to hardwar and stayed in dharamshala. the prosecutrix did not know the name of dharamshala or its location. in the f.i.r. lodged by the prosecutrix, it was alleged that the accused/appellant committed rape with her in the aforesaid dharamshala against her will. on the next day, the accused took the prosecutrix to the railway station on the pretext that she was to be taken to delhi. however, she was taken to rishikesh and she was made to stay at hanuman temple, muni-ki-reti. on 4-7-1986, the accused attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3112(UHC)
rajesh tandon, j.1. heard prabhat pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and sri d. s. patni, learned counsel for the respondents.2. this is an appeal arising out: of the judgment and order dated 19.9.2000 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, district udham singh nagar/addl. district judge in motor accident claim petition no. 9 of 1999, smt. ramesh rani v. shantanu das and anr.3. brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.1998 at about 8 p.m. sri vinod kumar khera was going on his motor cycle towards rudrapur. a matador bearing no. d.a.c.-9509 which was coming from rudrapur and was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle of the deceased due to which he fell down, mr. vijay papneja was present at the spot, he tried to stop the aforesaic matador, but the driver of matador fled away. vinod kumar sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries at the spot.4. at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of rs. 11,000 (eleven thousand) per month. he left his wife smt. ramesh rani and two sons namely naval kumar and sumit kumar. the petitioners claimed a sum, of rs. 15,00,000 as compensation.5. the united india insurance company respondent no. 2 in its written statement has not admitted the factum of accident, but has denied the allegation that the aforesaid vehicle was insured at the time of accident. the insurance company has stated that it was not given any information about the aforesaid accident under section 158(6) of the motor .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2004Utr30
orderrajesh tandon, j.1. heard sri sharad sharma for the revisionist and sri alok singh for the respondents.2. the present revision has been filed against the order dated 30-10-2002 passed on the application under order xxvi, rule 9, c. p. c. brief facts are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/revisionist praying for a decree of declaration against the defendant that he is owner of the property and title vested with the plaintiff. relief clause (aa) of the plaint is reproduced as under :decree ghosnatmak bahak vadi barkhilaf partiwadigan es aashay kee sadar farmai jaye ki vadi sampati nimanvarnittahativadpatra ka malik kabij hai aur vadi ko sampati nimanvarnit me samast malikana hakook prapt hai(.)it has been stated by the plaintiff that the property described in paragraph 2 of the plaint was the personal property of swami shanta nand and since then he is continuing in possession over that property being his younger brother and manager of the property of swami shanta nand. it was also stated that he was managing the entire affairs regarding the property of swami shanta nand and was also realising rent from the tenants. in paragraph 6 of the plaint applicant was claimed that swami shanta nand during his life time has executed a will on 27-9-1999 in his favour and since then he continues to be the owner of the property.3. written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant which forms part of the memo of revision as annexure 2 to the counter affidavit who has disputed the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2007ACJ765
rajeev gupta, c.j.1. this is insurer's appeal against the award dated 20.1.2004 passed by motor accidents claims tribunal/additional district judge, roorkee, haridwar in motor accident claim case no. 25 of 2003.2. the claimants, who are unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of the deceased rajendra kumar sharma, claimed compensation of rs. 35,10,000 for his death in motor accident on 19.2.2003 when his motor cycle bearing registration no. up 10-b 3669 was dashed by the offending vehicle bus bearing registration no. umu 9904 resulting in multiple serious injuries to rajendra kumar sharma, who succumbed to those injuries immediately after reaching civil hospital. the claimants further pleaded that rajendra kumar sharma was getting salary of rs. 13,045 as teacher in a government college.3. the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. the owner of the offending vehicle bus took the plea that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and in case of any liability to pay compensation to the claimants, it would be that of insurance company. the insurer, on the other hand, took the plea that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself.4. claimants examined mithlesh, pw 1, amarjeet, pw 2, ravindra singh, pw 3 and sanjay bansal, pw 4, in support of their claim, whereas the owner and insurer of the bus did not examine any .....
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 balladonna and ashok liquid), in kirti nagar through their sale counter in shop talwar medical store to bhau prasad, jivanand (p.w.11), murari lal (p.w.9), surendra singh, shiv singh, shyam singh, hari singh, bhupal singh, bhupat singh, (p, w. 10), ahmad, roshan, chandra singh, tara chand shiv lal, khantu, kamal singh, chote lal, harshmani and kishan lal (deceased) and others, all those who purchased and consumed the noxious liquor as an intoxicant from the shop of the accused, fell seriously ill and .....
Tag this Judgment!