Sikkim Court June 2014 Judgments
State of Sikkim Vs. Shilash Biswakarma (Kami) @ Sidash
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral).1. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No. 544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 06 of 2012 vide judgment dated 29th June, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition.2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Piyush Tewari, Founder and Managing Trustee, New Delhi Vs. The Chief S ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Jain, CJ. (Oral). 1. The present Public Interest Litigation arises out of a letter dated 26th March, 2014 written by SaveLIFE Foundation, New Delhi to the Director General of Police, Sikkim and a copy of which was endorsed to the Chief Justice of this Court. Considering the importance of the matter, the said letter was treated as Writ Petition (PIL). It was mentioned in the letter that the Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, vide G.S.R. 152(E) dated 5th March, 2014 has deleted the proviso from sub-rule (8) of Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules of 1989 ), which allowed for good carriages to be loaded with any pole or rods upto 1 meter beyond the rear most point of the motor vehicle. Since the proviso has been deleted, therefore, a ban should be imposed on the goods carrier from carrying protruding rods and poles. The contents of the letter are reproduced as under: - I am writing to bring to your notice the recent notificati...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Rewas Gurung, West Sikkim and Others
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No.544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 06 of 2013 vide judgment dated 29th August, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Mohan Kumar Mukhia (Sunar) @ Phuchay, West Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Jain, CJ. (Oral). 1. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No. 544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 01 of 2013, vide judgment dated 17th September, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Som Bahadur Subba, West Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
(Oral). Jain, CJ. 1. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No. 544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 13 of 2013, vide judgment dated 22nd March, 2014, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Divya Biswakarma
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No.544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 07 of 2013, vide judgment dated 31st October, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the responde...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Pave Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal and Another Vs. Union ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-09-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. The Petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at 2nd Floor, Kapil Centre, Opposite ICICI Bank, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, West Bengal and the Petitioner No.2 its Director. The Petitioner-Company had been awarded with a contract work for construction of Multi Level Car Parking with allied M/s. Pave Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others facilities at Mangan, North Sikkim, under a Contract Agreement dated 23-02-2010 in terms of which the work requiring completion in 24 months, was commenced on 25-01-2010. 2. Without going into the details, it is sufficient to note that the only grievance expressed by the Petitioner-Company in the Writ Petition is that the Respondents No.2 to 4 had refused to pay escalation costs occurring during and the extended period of the contract which, as per the Petitioner-Company, the Respondent No.2 was liable to pay under Clause 16.1 of the General Conditions of Contract. 3. Having been refus...
Tag this Judgment!Chewang Pintso Bhutia, East Sikkim and Another Vs. State of Sikkim thr ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-05-2014
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!Braj Kishore Singh Vs. State of Sikkim, Through Chief Secretary and Ot ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-03-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers: - Under the facts and circumstances it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue Rule calling upon the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus/certiorari and appropriate writ/order or direction may not be issued commanding /directing the respondents authorities:- a. Revoke the minor penalty of the petitioner s. b. Release the arrears salary, increment along with interest at the rate of 12% and Provident Fund from the month of January 2011 to April, 2013 which is payable to the petitioner with the interest rate of the concerned year for the interest of justice and fair play. c. after perusal of the records, causes shown if any and upon hearing the parties, may be pleased to quash the impugned order of the minor penalty of withholding of one increment of the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Prakash Chettri, South Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). 1. Heard Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Sikkim and Mr. Prakash Chettri, accused/ respondent along with his maternal uncle Mr. Damber Singh Chettri, who are present in person. 2. This Crl. Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West Sikkim at Gyalshing (for short, the Board ) in JJB Case No. 12 of 2013, whereby the accused/respondent has been convicted under Sections 376, 451 IPC, but instead of awarding any sentence of imprisonment, the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender s Act, 1958 has been granted to him, in compliance of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ). 3. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that judgment has been passed by the Principal Magistrate alone, whereas, as per proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 2000, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›