Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Kashmiri Lal Thakral and ors. Vs. Mohd. Aslam and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC77
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Manoj Mishra learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By the impugned order, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while filing restoration application has been rejected in filing the Revision within time.3. Briefly stated, the Suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 praying for the eviction of the defendant/applicant from the premises situate at Nainital Road, Kichha, Nainital.4. The plaintiff filed a Suit No. 16 of 1992, for arrears of rent, damages and eviction from a shop situated at Bareilly-Nainital Road, Kichha, Nainital. The Suit was contested by the applicants. The suit was decreed on 10.8.1999. A revision was preferred by the applicants, which was registered as Revision No. 11/1999. The said revision was dismissed in default on 17.2.2000. The petitioners have filed the application for recalling of the orders passed exparte on the ground that on 7.2.2000, he went to Ludhiyana in a marr...
U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Utr33
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Brief Holder accepts the notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. B. D. Upadhyaya, learned counsel accepts the notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. This is a writ petition challenging the communication at page 16 of the record being Notice No. 1623(B) ETD (D. Dun)/Security Guard dated 9-9-2004, which pertains to a notice to terminate the agreement w.e.f. 1-10-2004 as per clause (6) of the agreement. This agreement was between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3. The petitioners are a body for the benefit and welfare of the ex-army men and it is an agency to provide the guards etc. or the security services. Accordingly, there was an agreement between the parties dated 28-6-2004. Clause (6) of that agreement provided that the said agreement was terminable with one month's notice on either side.3. It seems that a communication was received by the respondent No. 3 from t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhopal Singh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ222
P.C. Verma and B.S. Verma, JJ.1. All these appeals arise out of the same motor accident and out of the common judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal and similar questions are involved for determination in these appeals, therefore, all the cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All these appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short 'the Act') against the judgment and award dated 24.4.2004 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 5 of 1999, Bhopal Singh v. Jalpac India Ltd.; M.A.C.P. No. 15 of 1999, Tulsi Karki v. Jalpac India Ltd.; and M.A.C.P. No. 1 of 1999, Liladhar Bhatt v. Jalpac India Ltd., by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded Rs. 6,67,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, as mentioned in the impugned order, in favour of claimant-respondent No. 4 Nandi Devi against oppo...
Bache Singh Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC71
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sh. J.C. Joshi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.6.1987 and 9.5.1988.3. Briefly stated that the petitioner is the owner in possession of plot No. 5252 and 5258 area 4 nali 16 muthi of village Bamanpuri Tehsil Ranikhet District Almora and the said land had been in his possession and cultivation for the last about sixty years.4. The petitioner has submitted that he constructed this house for rental purposes and has invested all his funds for raising his livelihood. The notice was sent under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1972. The petitioner has replied the said notice by stating that he has constructed the house over his own land and has constructed the same with the permission of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ranikhet. ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bisht and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC855; 2006ACJ2663
P.C. Verma, J.1. All these appeals are being heard together and decided by one and common order as the facts and question involved are common and also the vehicle involved in the accident and the date of accident is same.2. Opposite party-appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the appeals (SI. Nos. 1 to 16) against the one and common judgment dated 18.6.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Second Fast Track Court, Nainital in the Motor Accident Claim Petitions (Leading Case No. 162 of 2000).Appeals (SI. Nos. 17 to 22) have been preferred against the one and common judgment dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petitions (Leading Case No. 33 of 2000).A writ petition (SI. No. 23) and appeals (SI. Nos. 24 to 31) have been preferred against the one and common judgment dated 27.8.2002 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Fast Track Court, Nainita...
Shankari Devi (Smt.) Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC92
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority by which the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected.2. Briefly stated, an application was filed by the landlord Shankari Devi praying for the release of the premises situated at Aam Parav, Indira Nagar, Ward No. 3, House No. 54 Kotdwar, District Garhwal (Uttaranchal). The landlord Smt. Shankari Devi has filed an application that there are two shops, two rooms, one latrine, one gallery and verandah. The respondent No. 3 is occupying one shop as tenant since 1.1.1988 @ Rs. 350/- per month. The three grand sons of the landlord are major and are completely unemployed. The landlord has stated that she was employed at the health department and after retirement she is receiving pension. She did not receive sufficient fund after retirement and, therefore, she wants to get one of her g...
Shamim Ahmad Vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC64
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority, by which the release has been allowed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.2. Briefly stated an application was filed by Sri Om Prakash, landlord of the premises praying for the release of the premises consisting of one room, one verandah, one bath-room, and kitchen situated at Badri Mohalla, Panditwari, Dehradun. According to the landlord, one Smt. Firoz Begum w/o Yasin Beg was tenant @ Rs. 46/- per month. Smt., Firoz Begum expired on 22.10.1995 and Sri Shamim is the tenant of the premises. The family of landlord-respondent No. 3 consists of the following members:(a) self(b) his wife Smt. Munni Devi(c) his son Vijay Gupta(d) another son Yogesh Gupta(e) his daughter Km. Vinita Gupta(f) his brother Ram Avtar Gupta(g) and another brother Radha Krishan(h) his sister Vimla Devi3. The landlord has submitted that h...
Jagdish Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ816
Irshad Hussain, J. 1. Appellant Jagdish stands convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. per Judgment and order dated 2-3-1995 passed by the then Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in sessions trial No. 333 of 1989 of Police Station, Khatima of the then District Nainital.2. The prosecution case briefly stated was that the appellant was married to Smt. Shanti Devi deceased about 20 years before the occurrence of the case and he had set up his residence in village Mohammadpur Mudiya of Police Outpost Majhola, Police Station Khatima where the brothers of Smt. Shanti Devi were also residing. Appellant was residing with his wife and children in a thatch near the thatches of his brother-in-laws Shree Kishan and Rajendra. According to the prosecution appellant was suspecting that his wife Smt. Shanti Devi had compromised her chastity and this used to be the issue of quarrel between them.3. On 26-5-1989 at about 10 a.m. Smt. Shanti was preparin...
Smt. Sushila Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2815(UHC)
P.C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus commanding the respondents to pay amount of gratuity and family pension for the services rendered by her late husband,2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed as Assistant Cashier in U. P. Government Roadways on 29.7.1965. The said post was made pensionable vide order dated 5.9.1968 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The services of the husband of the petitioner were confirmed w.e.f. 1.4.1972 vide order dated 5.2.1973 passed by the Government. On 1.6.1972 a new body Corporate, U. P, State Road Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C.) was established in place of a Government Department known as U. P. Government Roadways. Even after absorption of the staff of Government Roadways in U.P.S.R.T.C., the services of the husband...
Bishan Singh Mehra and 48 ors. Vs. Vice-chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pan ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2818(UHC)
P.C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent University was constituted in the year 1958 under the U. P. Krishi Avam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 as an autonomous body. At the time of the constitution of the University it was provided 16000 acres of farm land for its use. In the year 1960, the lowest level Class III posts were in the pay scale of Rs. 230-385 which included Laboratory Assistant, Clerk-Typist, Accounts Clerks, Store Keepers, Bill Clerks. Through a Government letter No. 2236/12- 8/400/70/82 dated 11th May, 1983, the Vice-Chancellor of the University was told that there are discrepancies about the positions of 64 categories of employees, in resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »