Uttaranchal Court February 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.
Tara Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR883]; (2005)IIILLJ209UC; (2005)2UPLBEC54
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.2. This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal in limine of the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. the appellant herein. By that writ petition, the petitioner, i.e., the appellant herein, very strangely, had sought quashing of the order dated 19.11.2001, whereby as many as about 9 instructors came to be appointed for their regularisation.3. In support of his writ petition, the petitioner i.e. the appellant herein suggested before the learned single Judge that he was appointed as an Instructor in Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Tanakpur, somewhere on 1.2.1991 and that he continued till the year 1994 and more particularly, till 31.8.1994. His termination was effected because he was not a regularly selected candidate and one other regularly selected candidate was appointed in his place on 6.8.1993. It was pointed...
Vijay Bhadur Singh Vs. Special Session Judge and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-19-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2242
ORDERB.C. Kandpal, J. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 15-11-2003 passed by the Special Judge (Anticorruption), Deharadun by which the Court below has rejected the objection raised by the revisionist regarding the validity of the sanction granted by C.B.I.2. Brief facts of the case that give rise to the present revision are that the C. B. I. submitted the chargesheet against the revisionist along with other person Under Section 120B/ 420/467/468/471 I. P. C. and 13 (2) read with 13A (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. The revisionist along with other co-accused was summoned by the Court and charges were framed against him.4. The revisionist Vijay Bahadur Singh challenged the sanctioned order passed by Sri Vijay Mathur, Director of Income Tax (Investigation) who was examined by the Court as P. W. I.5. The matter was challenged earlier and this Court directed that P. W. 1 Vijay Mathur be re-examined relating to the validity of the sanction.6. ...
Ahmad Sayeed Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC730
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Seema Sirohi, Counsel for the respondents.By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and orders dated 19.8.2000 dismissing the petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1997 and 28.2.1997 passed by the respondent No. 2 allowing the release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE:-1. Briefly stated, the proceedings were initiated under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the landlord Sri Balbir Singh in respect of the premises within the municipal limits of Nagar Palika.2. The dispute in the present case relates to a shop situate in a part of premises being Municipal No. 29 Dhara Road, Pauri Garhwal of which respondent No. 3 Balbir Singh is owner and the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner was inducted as tenant in the shop by ...
Mahavir Prasad Vs. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1520(UHC); [2005(105)FLR34]
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a dismissed Constable of Police, has sought certtorart quashing the judgment and order dated 6.7.2000, passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26.7.1969 in U.P. Armed Police. He was sent or deputation to U.P. Vigilance Department on 5.10.1977. In the year 1985 a Crime No. 343 of 1985 under Section 409/420/471, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. Again, another Crime No. 1079 of 1985 under Section 409/420/471, I.P.C. was registered by lodging the first information report with the Police Station. Hazratganj, Lucknow. Consequently, the petitioner surrendered and was sent to jail on 24.8.1985, where from he was released on bail on 21.9.1985. Meanwhile vide order dated 23.8.1985, the petitioner was relieved from the Vi...
Managing Director, Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam and anr. Vs. Desh Raj S ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1524; [2005(105)FLR38]; (2005)2UPLBEC478
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 4172 of 2001 (S/S) by learned Single Judge of this Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by Shri Desh Raj Singh (respondent No. 1) under Article 226 of Constitution of India for. mandamus directing payment of his salary and for regularization of his services, with the averments that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as tractor operator on daily wage basis with Forest Corporation of U.P. at its Mohand Depot (Uttar Pradesh). He was sent in February, 1999 by Assistant Logging Officer, Mohand Depot for his duties in Chilla Range (now in Uttaranchal). After the creating of State of Uttaranchal, a new corporate body known as Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam was created with effect from 1.4.2001. This Corporation had certain arrangements with the Forest Corporation of U.P. under which the employees of said Corporation...
Brijnandan Sharan Bansal and ors. Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC820; 2007ACJ692
P.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Hardwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 87 of 2001, Brijnandan Sharan Bansal v. Managing Director, Pep-su Road Trans. Corporation (PRTC), Depot Patiala, District Patiala (Punjab).2. Claimants raised the claim through the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 87 of 2001 for Rs. 11,60,000 on account of the death of Nirmala Devi wife of Brijnandan Sharan Bansal, claimant No. 1 and mother of Anil Bansal and Anju Bansal, claimant Nos. 2 and 3. The death of Nirmala Devi occurred in the accident, which took place on 4.6.2001 at about 11 a.m. near Himalaya Dhaba within the circle of village Amb, P.S. Amb, District Una (H.P.) by bus No. PB 11-M 1699 on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver. The deceased Nirmala Devi was going to pilgrimage of Nav Durga by a private bus No. UP 10-D 8...
Chairman of District Cane Service Authority Vs. Mohd. Usman Ikramul Ha ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR217]; (2005)2UPLBEC49
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. 1. The appeal is by the Chairman of District Cane Service Authority, Udham Singh Nagar. The respondent No. 4 in the writ petition has come up before us in this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment of learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition.2. The writ petition was filed by one of the employees of the appellant Society, as he was sought to be retired at the age of 58 years. It was his case that owing to a Government order dated 26.2.2003, the retiring age of the employees like him, had been increased from 58 to 60 years. The learned single Judge entertained the writ petition and took a view that the said G.O. was applicable to all the Cooperative Societies, and as such the original respondent No. 4, the appellant herein, also being the Cooperative Society, the G.O. was applicable and consequently the retiring age had to be 60 years and not 58 years. It is this judgment of the learned single Judge which is in challenge before us.3. The learned counsel for...
P.C. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr4
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. This writ petition has a chequered history. Initially what is being challenged is the order dated 11-6-1999 as received by the petitioners on 26-6-2000 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) as also Order dated 2-8-2000 which is nothing but a consequential demand notice issued to the petitioners and also the notice issued to the petitioners to vacate the leased plots. By the second prayer the petitioners also seek to get the rent for the plot re-fixed in terms of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the circular dated 29-8-1995. Few fact:3. Petitioners are occupying the leasehold plots belonging to the railway property in Tanakpur. They use the bare plots for storing the stone boulders, which are rolled from river Sharda and the other tributaries and rivulets. These boulders are collected and sold by the petitioners. It is only for the storage of these boulders tha...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (Now Uttaranchal) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Utr66
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. We have heard Mr. Alok Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. K. P. Upadhayaya, learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner herein challenges the citation and recovery certificate issued against him for recovering an amount of Rs. 1,10.480/-. Following facts will clarify the controversy involved :A notification was issued for holding auction regarding forest crops including 248 mango trees, 25 Naspati trees, 12 guava trees and 13 Leechi trees of Bahadrabad Baghin survey No. 1 and 2 of lot number 61 for the year 1993-94. The petitioner's case is that auction for that purpose was held on 15-3-1994 wherein, he was the highest bidder for the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. According to the petitioner, the condition of the auction required the petitioner to pay Rs. 10.000/- alongwith the prescribed security amount and Income Tax payable immediately on the closing of the bid, that is on the same day when the bid was finalized and the balance amount was to be ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›