Uttaranchal Court August 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Km. Shilpi Saini Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Utr34
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioner has sought direction in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to give admission provisionally i.e. till the declaration of result of her compartment examination and allocate her seat according to her place in the merit list in the counselling.2. Heard Sri Nagesh Agrawal for the petitioner, Sri R. Dobhal for the respondent No. 2 and Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. So far as the respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned notices were issued to them but none appeared for them. Sri R. Dobhal filed counter affidavit alone.3. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that a common entrance examination on All India basis for admission to professional and technical programs in the various institute of the (country) named as All India Engineering, Pharmacy, and Architecture Entrance Examination (AIEEE) 2003 was held on 11-5-2003, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education under the Chairmanshi...
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Amanullah Khan and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Utr6
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Roorkee. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that execution proceedings in pursuance of Acquisition Case No. 202 of 1989 were initiated by the decree-holder for the recovery of a sum of 19,00,665.10 along with 15% interest.2. The execution was registered on 1-12-1998. The objections were filed stating therein that no decreetal amount is due and instead of that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,27,853.09 from the decree-holder and as such the execution application is liable to be dismissed.3. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the arguments has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 11,08,631.06 is due towards execution of the decree. The learned Additional District Judge has also passed the order directing the judgment-debtor for deduction of tax at source.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist ...
Embrose Holding Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Utr46
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U. P. dated 31st March 1997, passed in Stamp Revision No. 13 of 1995-96.2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under Indian Companies Act 1956 and petitioner No. 2 is one of its directors. It was alleged that the petitioners have purchased 4 acres of land (25 bigha 12 biswa) of Khasra No. 85/1 of village Fazalpur, Tehsil Kichcha, District Nainital from one Sri Gurpreet Singh son of Sri Haripal Singh through power of attorney in the year 1990.3. The petitioners valued the property at the rate prevalent in the area and paid the stamp duty accordingly. It was valued at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per acre whereas circle rate in the area was Rs. 24,000/- to Rs. 32,000/- per acre and as such petitioner have alleged to have paid the stamp duty on the higher amount in the year 1990.4. The sale deed of ...
Bharat Bhusan Vs. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Utr12
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri B. D. Upadhyay for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Dobhal for the respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relieves :'A writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dropping the petitioner from the University as endorsed in the mark sheet of the first semester of the academic year 2001-2002 and order dated 11-5-2002 passed by the respondents contained in Annexure 3 and 5 respectively to this writ petition.3. A writ order of direction in the nature of1 mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the C.G.P.A. of the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 40 of the regulations framed by the University and permit him to study in next semester.'4. According to the petitioner he has qualified the entrance test conducted by the university for admission in B.Sc. (Agriculture) for the academic year 2000-2001. Although he has passed the entrance test in th...
Keshi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mussorie Dehradun Development Auth ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Utr41
M.M. Ghildiyal, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 22-10-2002 by which the sanction of map No. C-12/2000-2001 was cancelled and order dated 4-4-2003 passed by the Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun directing the petitioner to submit revised map for compounding as per existing bye-laws.2. Heard Sri L. P. Naithani learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sharad Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dhuliya learned counsel for the respondents.3. The' facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioners are owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 59 Gandhi Road, Dehradun, They have acquired the ownership through registered sale deed dated 19-12-2001 from its erstwhile owners. Initially the said property belonged to Sri Abul Fazal Ansari, Sri Mumtaz Ahmad Ansari, Abdul Bari, Sri Mohd. Aslam and Sri Jamshed Iqbal residents of Raza Road, Dehradun.4. The aforesaid co-owners executed regis...
Shamsher Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4797
Irshad Hussain, J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years Under Section 376, IPC, per judgment and order dated 13-1-1999 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 28/1997, for having committed rape on Km. Rekha, a minor girl at about 6.20 a.m. on 29-4-1997 in the vicinity of village Kawadi of P.S. Jhulaghat, District Pithoragarh.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 29-4-1997 at about 6.20 a.m. prosecutrix Km. Rekha aged about 12 years a student of Class 6th was going to her School in Jhulaghaat and at that time she was accompanied by her mother Smt. Harna Devi who went to collect hay and grass for she-goat. They had left their house in village Birkham. At a distance of about one kilometer from the village Smt. Harna Devi stopped for collecting grass whereas her daughter Km. Rekha left her company for her School. Soon after Smt. Harna Devi heard shriek of her daughter and when she rushed towards her she found...
Km. I. Gupta Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC924(UHC)
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for mandamus directing the District Judge, Dehradun to withdraw the Original Suit No. 27 of 2001 from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun and transfer to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun or any other Court.2. The prayer in the present writ petition cannot be granted as the prayer contains transfer of the suit from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to another Court. In fact prayer is for withdrawal of the suit pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.). Such prayer can only be made by transfer application under Section 24(a), C.P.C.3. So far as prayer for expediting of the suit is concerned, the petitioner may file an application before the District Judge for issuing directions to expedite the case and the learned District Judge after considering the pendency of the cases and their year of institution will pass suitable order on it.4. With these observations the writ petition is dismi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›