Uttaranchal Court November 2005 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.
Rajeev Nayan Saklani Vs. U.P. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr23
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-6-1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal wherein he dismissed the Civil Suit No. 19 of 1985.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal 3 are that Rajiv Nain-Sakiani is the owner and in possession of land situated in Kirdo Tok, Kalwan Tok and Batwaldhar Tok of village Kalwan Tekhna, Patti Saklana, District Tehri Garhwal, Earlier this village was a part of village Majhgaon, Patti Saklana but now it is a separate revenue village. 4.5 hectares of land is situated in Kalwan and Kundo Tok whereas 3.50 hectares of land lies in Batwaldhar name Tok. Late Sridatt Saklani, grandfather of the plaintiff/appellant was the Muafidar of this land during the British Government. Late Sridatt Saklani was in possession of this land since 1903. This land was entered in Plot Nos. 66 to 76, 136 to 170 in khata No. 1 and plot Nos. 1 to 16, 25 to 27 and 36 to 58 in khate No. 2.3. After the death of Sri Sridat...
Trilok Singh Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge and ors ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC87
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Rudraprayag, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 38 of 2003 on 10.3.2004.2. Brief facts of the case are that on the ill-fated day i.e. 2.8.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. Smt. Deveshwari Devi wife of claimant Trilok Singh was travelling in vehicle (Tata Sumo) No. UA 07-B-4973 which was going from Karanprayag to Srinagar. The said vehicle met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver near Narkota-Khankhara in which Smt. Deveshwari Devi aged about 32 years died and her husband (claimant) received injuries on his head. The deceased was posted as Assistant Teacher under the Basic Education Officer, Chamoli at the time of accident. She was getting monthly salary Rs. 8,044. The claimant filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribun...
Suneel Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr26; I(2007)BC353
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree dated 17-9-1998, passed in Civil Suit No. 260 of 1987 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hardwar. As such, both the appeals are being taken up together for its disposal.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/bank allowed a cash credit facility to defendant No. 1 who is proprietor of M/s. Madhu Shree Industries (defendant No. 2) on 1-4-1980 for a sum of Rs. 65.000/- in respect of which a promissory note was executed by defendants. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the guarantors of said loan. Defendant No. 2, hypothecated its goods to the bank, apart from executing equitable mortgage of his property. On 24-12-1980, cash credit limit was extended to Rs. 1,25,000/-on interest at the rate of 19.40% with quarterly interest thereon. After few years, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 stopped to submit the hypothecation statement to the bank. On 28-9-1986, plaintiff/bank served a notice on the defendant No. 1 fo...
Vinod Goyal Vs. Sarita Goyal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr36; II(2005)DMC849
Prafullu C. Pant, J.1. These two appeals, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against order dated 22.11.2004 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2004, Mrs. Sarita v. Vinod Goijal, whereby the Judge has rejected the objection raised by the appellant-husband challenging jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain the application of the plaintiff-wife under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and directed the appellant-husband to produce the child before the Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-wife has filed an application under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of minor child Kannu from the custody of the appellant-husband. The said application was registered as Case No. 19 of 2004, Smt. Sarita v. Vinod Goyal. As per the said application Sarita got married to Vinod Goyal on 19.4.2000 and out of their wedlock Master Kannu got born on 24.2.2001. It is a...
Mohd. Hazi Rafeeq Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr18
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is holder of a licence issued under the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978. The licence was originally issued in the name of Sri Abdul Rashid s/o Sri Abdul Hakim, r/o Bhawaniganj, Ram Nagar, District Nainital. As per Annexure 5 order dated 22-2-2000 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh, permission was granted to transfer the licence in the name of the petitioner and to relocate the saw mill at Lakri Mandi, Amritpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On the basis of the said permission, the petitioner has been operating the saw mill at Lakri Mandi, Amritpur in Udham Singh Nagar. Suddenly, the petitioner received Annexure-I letter dated 16-9-2005 from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttaranchal stating that the petitioner's saw mill is located within 10 Kms. at an approximate aerial distance of 4 Kms. from the boundary of the forest and that such location of the saw mill is against the order dated 5...
Doon Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr11
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 27-6-2005 stated to have been passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Dehradun (respondent No. 6) restraining any construction or excavation activities and sale/purchase transaction in respect of the lands mentioned in the said order. According to the petitioners, they are absolute owners in possession of the lands in question. It is contended that the action of the sixth respondent is illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction.2. Though the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27-6-2005, a copy of the said order was not produced along with the writ petition. Though a document is produced as Annexure 14, it is not copy of any order and it is not possible to make out what the document is, as it has neither head nor tail. Hence, the petitioners were given time to place on record a copy of the order impugned in the writ petition. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a s...
Ashish Nanda Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr30
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 30-3-2001 and 27-5-1998 as well as the orders dated 29-3-2000 and 26-11-1997.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner has purchased land of khata by virtue of sale deed dated 5-4-1994 land of Khata No. 49-Ka area 2 Nali 4 Mutthis by virtue of sale deed dated 5-4-1994. The sale deed in question was valued at Rs. 67,215/- and the stamp duty according to the petitioner was paid to the extent of Rs. 9800/-. However, a notice was issued under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act stating therein that the petitioner having purchased 2 Nali 4 mutthis land which is situated about 200 meters away from the motorable road and he is required to pay the deficiency to the extent of Rs. 28,697.50p. The petitioner has objected to the said notice on the ground that he has paid the stamp duty on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector and, therefore, the notice is li...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›