Uttaranchal Court July 2004 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.
Girdhar Singh Rana and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1478
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 30.6.1998, the date, when the persons, who have obtained the degree of AMIE (Civil Engineering Branch) subsequently to the petitioners, have been promoted by the respondent authorities.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 obtained a diploma in Civil Engineering in the year 1983 and after obtaining the said diploma he passed the said examination i.e. Associate Member of Institute of Engineering in Civil Engineering Branch. A certificate to that effect has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. Similarly petitioner No. 2 obtained diploma in Civil Engineering in 1983 and after obtaining the said diploma he passed AMIE in Civil Engineering. Certificate dated 17.5.1991 to this effect has been annexed with the writ pe...
State of Uttaranchal Through Collector Vs. Suresh Chandra
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ260UC
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated February 10, 2001 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun.FACTS:2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 was appointed on April 1, 1987 as Beldar in the department of petitioner No. 2 and he continued up to January 9, 1992, but on January 10, 1992, his services were terminated without any prior notice, which is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Therefore, the respondent No. 1 raised the dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Following matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun:'Vernacular matter omitted.'The Labour Court after hearing both the parties held that the termination order passed by the petitioner-department...
Gyan Chand and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Utr4
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. As many as 118 writ petitioners have filed this writ petition for a very peculiar relief. In their prayer clause, they seek quashing of the order dated 4-9-1996 and Notification dated 13-8-1966 and 30-8-1966. They also seek a direction for complying the Government order dated 5-2-1988.2. All the writ petitioners claimed to be refugees from West Pakistan and further claimed that they belong in all to 135 families. Out of them, the petitioners belonged to 79 families, whereas the remaining persons belonged to other 56 families. The writ petition is filed on behalf of 79 families, who, according to the petition, have remained high and dry without any semblance of rights on the land, which continues to be in their possession and is being cultivated by them. It is the case of the petitioners that under the rehabilitation policy of the Government of India, namely, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, one Triveni Das and Group' applied for Awar...
Khushal Mani Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1196]
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 26.8.2002 issued by the respondent No. 2.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are the workmen, who were employed as daily wager. Petitioners have raised an industrial dispute and claimed permanent status with all benefits. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order regularising the petitioners and other workmen with all benefits of permanent employee w.e.f. 1st October, 1988. An award to that effect was passed on 28.3.1995. The said award was challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Allahabad High Court in writ petition No. 12331 of 1996. On 13th February, 1998, the said writ petition was dismissed and the award was confirmed.3. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 approached the Hon'ble S...
Smt. Leela Bhandari Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1481
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.2.2000 passed by the respondent No. 4 Annexure-7 to the writ petition, order dated 12.4.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Annexure-10 to the writ petition and order dated 16.7.2002 passed by respondent No. 4, Annexure 12 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb the working of the petitioner on the post of EDBPM Toli (Gurna), District Pithoragarh.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in pursuance of advertisement for vacancy of a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Tolli (Gurna) in District Pithoragarh, the petitioner has submitted her application for consideration. She has annexed all the documents required in pursuance of the departmental rules. The selection committee has duly selected the petitioner on the said post and a formal appointment letter was is...
Mahendra Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR983]; (2004)IIILLJ1012UC
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated December 23, 1999 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun.2. Facts:Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the case of petitioner are that he worked with respondent No. 2 since were not taken into account while calculating the total number of working days in continuous service. June 1, 1980 till June 4, 1988. He worked as a muster roll employee 'Baildar'. He was not given any notice of termination of services prior to June 5, 1988, the day on which he was dispensed from his services and that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months. On June 5, 1988 his service was illegally terminated without following the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the OT U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.3. The petitioner has raised the disput...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR395(Uttaranchal)
1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated April 27, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 1346/Delhi of 1993.2. Mr. Spencer J., the respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, the respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.3. The questions raised before us are as follows :Questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income-tax Act in terms of section 9(l)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Uttranchal)507
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dt. 27th April, 2000, passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi, in ITA No. 1346/Del/1993.2. Mr. Spencer, J., respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.3. The questions raised before us are as follows :Questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the salary, paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to Indian IT Act in terms- of Section 9(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, whereas the learned Tribunal has itself held, vide order dt. 25th March, 1992 in ITA No. 5649/Del/1992, dt. 28th July, 1999 in ITA ...
Cit Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN405(NULL)
ORDERThis is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 1346/Delhi/ 1993.2. Mr. Spencer, J, respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.3. The questions raised before us are as follows:Questions:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was legally justified in holding that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income Tax Act in terms of section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1, whereas the learned ITAT has itself held, vide order dated 25-3-1992 in ITA No. 5649/D/92, dated 28...
Nafees Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1180
Irshad Hussain, J.1. The appellant was tried in the Court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun on an allegation that while he was standing in front of Arora Sweet Shop on Saharanpur road within the circle of P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun at about 10.50 p.m. on 26-10-2002, he was carrying with him 1 kg. 900 gms 'Charas' and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act').2. According to the prosecution the appellant was arrested by the police party consisting of S.H.O., P.S. Vikas Nagar Sri Lakshman Singh Bisht (P.W. 3), S.I. Naveen Chand Semwal (P.W. 1) and Constable driver Satvir Malik on the lead given by the police informer. The police party was then on patrol duty. The appellant on being apprehended told that he was possessed of the contraband. Tehsildar-Magistrate Sri Prabad Singh Butola (P.W. 2) was summoned at the scene of the arrest and search was made in his presence leadi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »