Uttaranchal Court July 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.
Arun Kumar Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC719(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, in case No. 54 of 1998, whereby vacancy has been declared in respect of the property No. 53H, ground floor, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially a tenant in the aforesaid property consisting of two rooms and a bathroom, in the ground floor, since 1991. Thereafter, an agreement for sale of the said property was allegedly entered between the petitioner Arun Kumar and respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar and an amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid to him as earnest money on 30th August, 2001. On said date, a receipt-cum-possession letter was issued by the respondent No. 2, a copy of which is Annexure-1 filed with the petition. However, respondent...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Manora Gram Swaraj Ashram
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC321(Uttra)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was originally filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1992 and received by this Court on transfer under section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal.2. The revision is directed against the order dated February 1, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly in Second Appeal Nos. 139 of 1990, 140 of 1990 and 145 of 1990. The revision involves following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified that earthen tiles fell under the category of 'pottery' ?'3. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist. No one turned up on behalf of the assessee, even after service of notice.4. The assessee is a village industry unit, who is exempted from payment of tax in respect of certain items. The dispute relates to t...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mahabir Industries
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC384(Uttra)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was originally filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1993 and received by this Court on transfer under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal.2. The revision is directed against the order dated September 30, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haldwani, in second appeal Nos. 78 of 1991 and 77 of 1991. The revision involves following question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 15A(1)(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, despite the fact that the dealer had deliberately issued false form III-C(2) to the purchasers 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist. No one turned up on behalf of the assessee, even after service of notice.4. The assessee is...
Roop Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ353
1. This a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-7-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge Uttarkashi in S. T. No. 3 of 1984 State v. Roop Singh whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.2. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H. P. v. Shree Kant Shekari, MANU/SC/0750/2004 : 2004CriLJ4232 as under :We do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228A IPC makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of certain offences punishable, printing or publishing name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by a High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ...
Jaspal Singh Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3101(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction quashing the order dated 6.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 3, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Haridwar, whereby he has declared vacancy in respect of the room in question.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that, petitioner's father Sardar Gyan Singh used to reside in the premises in question as a tenant of respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 16 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for allotment of premises in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on said application on 4.7.2000, according to which the room was found locked. It was further reported by the Inspector that Sardar Gyan Singh had already constructed a house in the same lane. It is alleged in the petition that Rent Control Ins...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Surendra Prakash Kaushik and Sons
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC208(Uttra)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-revisionist. No one turned up on behalf of the assessee, even after sufficient service.2. This revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was filed before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1990 from where it has been received by transfer under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. The revision is directed against the order dated August 21, 1990, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Dehradun.3. The question of law involved in this revision is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the purchases were made in the dealer's own account directly from the agriculturists and that the sale of ex-U.P. had been made by the consignment whereas the dealer had himself issued 6-R and 9-R showing himself as selling ?'4. The assessee is a dealer, who deals in sonth ...
Laxmi Prapannacharya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr7
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 18-4-1995 and 21-6-1993 by which the petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty.2. Briefly stated notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, for realisation of the deficit stamp duty on a trust deed executed in respect of a property situated at Tilak Marg, Rishikesh and belonging to Mahant Ashok Prapanna of temple of Bharat Ji Maharaj. The petitioner objected for realisation of stamp duty on the ground that on 31-3-1992 trust was constituted and there is a temple over the land. The petitioner has submitted that the trust deed dated 31-3-1992 is not a settlement of property but it is a simple trust deed and is not amenable to the stamp duty.3. The counsel for the petitioner has raised two points:(1) That the document dated 31-3-1992 being a trust deed cannot amount to settlement.(2) The market value assessed Rs. 400/-per sq. ...
Nasir Ahmad and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1640
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1984 passed by Sri V.S. Bajpai, the then Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Nainital in S.T. No. 173/1983, State v. Nazir Ahmad & Ishrat Ali, whereby the appellant No. 1. Nasir Ahmad and appellant No. 2 Ishrat All were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 324, IPC & 324/34, IPC respectively. In default of payment of fine, the appellants would further undergo R.I. for a period of six months.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 4-4-1982 ,at about 1 p.m. the injured Om Prakash was going on a cycle from his shop to his house. When he reached near the Masjid in Mohalla Bansphoran, the front wheel of his cycle dashed the foot of the appellant-Nasir Ahmad. The appellant-Nasir Ahmad then pulled the complainant down from the cycle and started hurling abuses to him. The appellant-Ishrat All caught hold of the hands of the in...
Umed Chand Ramola Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ951
ORDERJ.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 28-9-1984 passed by Shri V.N. Mehrotra, the then Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in criminal Appeal No. 9/1983 dismissing the appeal of the appellant/revisionist and confirming the judgment and order dated 23-3-1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years under Section 408, I.P.C. and to pay a fine Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo R.I. for a period of eighteen months.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the revisionist-Umed Chand Ramola was employed as peon-cum-Chawkidar at Purola Branch of the District Co-operative Bank, Uttarkashi. The Branch Manager of the Bank used to send the money to its head office at Uttarkashi and also to other regional offices of the Bank in the district. On 7-4-1981 an amount of Rs. 1,50...
U.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR399]
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 2nd July, 1986 passed by the Labour Court.Briefly stated the Government of Uttar Pradesh referred a dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. The term of reference was as under:Whether the termination of Sri Basant Lal Gaur son of Sri Ram Bharose Lal Sharma, Routine Grade Clerk (on daily wages) from 27.7.1978 by the employer was valid and legal If not, whether the workman is entitled to any reliefThe worrkman in his written statement has alleged that he has worked as a Routine Grade Clerk from 9th September, 1977 to 26th July, 1978 and his services were terminated by an oral order on 27.7.1978. He had worked for 240 days and his termination was illegal on account of the fact that no retrenchment compensation or notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to him.2. The petitioner filed written statement on 13.8.1984, stating therein that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »