Sikkim Court October 2014 Judgments
Passang Tamang @ Lailas Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. By filing this Appeal, the Appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 29-04-2013 passed by the Learned Judge, Fast Tract Court, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Sessions Trial Case No.34 of 2013 by which he was convicted and sentenced for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). 2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case is that, on a oral complaint lodged by one Shanti Gurung, P.W.1, that her daughter, Priyanka Gurung, P.W.2, aged about 7 years was raped by the Appellant on 25-09-2012, case under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered by the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Gangtok being FIR No.121(09)12 dated 26-09-2012 against the Appellant and taken up for investigation. 3(i). During the course of the investigation, the victim Priyanka Gurung, P.W.2, was forwarded to the STNM Hospital, Gangtok, for medical investigation. The Investigating Officer (in short the I.O. ), P.W.11, visited and inspected the place of occurre...
Tag this Judgment!Norbu Tshering Bhutia Vs. M/s. Calcutta Hardware Stores through its Pr ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Learned District Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit No.1 of 2010 by which the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 was decreed prohibiting the Plaintiffs and the Proforma Defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the Respondents except in accordance with law. At the same time dismissing the counter-claim of the Appellant. 2. In the original suit, the Appellant is the Defendant No.1 and the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are the Plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The Respondent No.1 is a firm in the name and style of M/s. Calcutta Hardware Stores of which Respondent No.2 is the proprietor who, with the assistance of his brother Respondent No. 3, runs a business of hardware and paint (these Respondents are hereinafter together referred to as the Respondents). Proforma Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 are the Defendants No.2, 3 and 4 res...
Tag this Judgment!U. Narayan Sharma and Others vs. State of Sikkim and Others
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
Judgment (Oral) Wangdi, J. 1. The Petitioners are presently serving as Lower Division Clerks (in short LDCs ) in different departments under the Respondent No.1. Initially, they were appointed as Fieldmen/Field Assistants in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Sikkim which was later bifurcated as Horticulture and Cash Crop Development Department and Food Security and Agriculture Development Department, Government of Sikkim, Respondents No.2 and 3 respectively. 2. It is submitted that the Petitioners had successfully undergone training in different fields and having put in requisite number of years of service they were eligible for promotion to the posts of Village Level Workers (in short VLWs ). 3. Mr. Jorgay Namkha, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submits that as per the practice prevalent in the department the next promotion for a person holding the post of Field Assistant was the post of Village Level Worker (VLW). The department instead promoted t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›