Uttaranchal Court August 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.
Mohan Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2(2006)DMC253
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. These two criminal appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by Mr. R.K. Sharma the then Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in S.T. No. 13 of 2001 and S.T. No. 25 of 2001 whereby the learned Sesssions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant Vlnod Prasad to undergo R.I. for a period often years under Section 304B, IPC, two years RI under Section 498A, IPC and two years RI under Section 201, IPC. Each of the appellants Mohan Prasad, Smt. Basanti Devi and Km. Seema were convicted and sentenced under Section 498A, IPC to undergo one year RI and a fine of Rs. 500 and they were also convicted and sentenced under Section 201, IPC to undergo one year RI and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine each of the appellant to undergo additional two years S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of Smt. Meena daughter of Bhupendra Prasad Maithani (P.W.I) was...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Siddarth Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST265(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This sales tax revision was filed before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1992, from where it has been received by transfer by this Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal.2. The revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against order/award dated March 4, 1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, Camp, Haldwani.3. The following question of law is involved in this revision:Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that 'rice husk' and 'paddy husk' are two different commodities and has erred in law in interpreting the principle of law contained in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Naveen Traders MANU/UP/0308/1973 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.5. The assessee is a dealer dealing in the manufacture and sale of straw-board, etc. The matter relates to the assessment year 1989-90.6. The dispute in the present case has ari...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC726(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1.By means for this petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (tenant) has sought direction quashing the Judgment and order dated 23.11.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 and judgment and order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that premises known as Ridgeway Bungalow in Cantonment Ranikhet, were initially owned by one Late Shri Ghasi Ram Kapoor, who died some more than 50 years back leaving behind his two widows and one daughter Smt. Beena G. Bansal (respondent No. 3). One of the widow Smt. Prakashwati Kapoor let out the said premises to the Divisional Organizer of the Special Service Bureau (petitioner) on 1.4.1966 on rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month. Till March 1983, rent was regularly paid to the landlady, whereafter she refused to accept the same and petitioner started depositing the rent in the Court. Smt. Prakashwati Kapoor died in Ja...
Devi Prasad Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Alias Biddo and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Utr85; 2006(1)AWC722
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1991, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Rorkee, in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1984, whereby the said appeal has been dismissed and judgment and decree passed on 15-2-1984 in Original Suit No. 143 of 1979 by the trial Court is upheld.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (appellant instituted original suit No. 143 of 1979, against Sri Bhagwat Prasad (since deceased) pleading that plaintiff got constructed his shop in the year 1965. Said shop has two doors one opening towards east and another towards the north. Over each of these doors towards outside, there is separate shed to protect from rain and sun. Under the north side door there is a Chabutara (a platform). About two and half years before the institution of suit in 1979, Shri Bhagwat Prasad requested and sought licence to do his business of selling 'Paan' (betel)...
Sanjay Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC628
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh Negi and Mr. Amrish Agarwal learned Counsel for the applicant2. Issue notice to the private respondent returnable within eight week List thereafter.3. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2207/2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, U. Nagar shall remain stayed.4. It has been alleged in para 7 of the petition that the instant complaint was filed by the complainant against the applicants and the same is only a counter blast of the complaint lodged by the applicant No. 5 under Sections 498A, 323, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. It has also been alleged in para 9 of the petition that the applicant No. 5 has moved an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against her husband before the competent Magistrate and the learned Magistrate allowed the same.5. Therefore, I direct both the parties to appear before the Marriage Counselling Cell, U. Nagar on 30th September, 2005 for reconciliation. The...
Dr. Chitra Agarwal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Utr78
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner claims to be a practising Doctor who is having an Ultrasound Centre and X-ray Clinic known as Chitra Ultrasound Centre at 5 - New Road, Dehradun. The said Ultrasound Centre has been registered under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagonostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short PNDT Act). According to the petitioner, the registration certificate bears No. A/CMO/16 dated 10-12-2001. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the registration of the petitioner's Ultrasound Centre was first suspended and then cancelled illegally. As per Annexure 1 order dated 23-2-2005, the registration was suspended under Section 20(3) of the PNDT Act by the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun who is the Appropriate Authority at the district level. The petitioner was also asked to show cause why the registration should not be cancelled. In reply to Annexure 1 notice/'suspension order, the petitioner submitted Annexure 2 explan...
Ayyub and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1227
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 18-11-1980 passed by Sri Vishnu Chandra, the then Vth Add. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in S. T. No. 272/1980 State v. Ayyub and Ors. convicting and sentencing the appellants to R.I. for two years under Section 308 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and to R. I. for one year under Section 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Both the sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that one-Jimmu has four sons namely Rahmat, Fakkar Budhu and Mushtaq. Ramzani is the son of Rahmat. Budhu has two sons namely Jameel-injured and Barkat-injured. Barkat has one daughter namely Km. Naeema. Mushtaq has two sons namely Ayyub-accused and accused-Mustaqeern. Ayyub and Mustkim are the cousins of Barkat Ali-complainant. For the sake of convenience, pedigree is given below :Jimmu|---------|------------|----------------------|Rahmat Fakkar Budhu Mushtaq| | |Ramzani (son) |------------| |-------------|Jameel ...
Sarafat Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ654
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-5-1984 passed by the 1st Addl, Sessions Judge, Nainital in S. T. No. 79/1982, whereby the accused persons, namely Tara Chand, Sarafat-appellant and Bhagwan Dass were convicted under Sections 366, 368, 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five years under each count. All the sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that two prosecutrix, who had been residing with their guardians in village Bagga No. 54, P.S. Khatima, District Nainital, went for collecting fuel woods on 23-2-1982 at about 12 noon. Some other villagers including Pooran Masi (PW-4) also went in the jungle for the said purpose. When they were returning with the fuel woods Forest clerk Ram Gopal checked them and detained others but released the said prosecutrix and instructed them not to come again in the jungle for collecting the fuel woods. When they proceeded a little ahead, they were cau...
Arbinder Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1021
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. These two criminal appeals were filed against the same judgment and order dated 13-3-1981 passed by Sri M. C. Jain the then Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No. 295 of 1979, State v. Arbinder Singh and 5 Ors., therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant Arbinder Singh to undergo R.I. for a period of four years under Section 395, I.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused, namely, Munshi Ram, Amar Chand, Deewan Chand, Gopal Chand and Mugla Ram.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5/6-7-1979 Ranjeet Singh Rawat (P.W. 1) Range Officer of Forest at Ramnagar along with Kirti Singh Bist (P.W. 2) Forester, Khushal Singh (P.W. 3), forest guard and other forest personnel were on patrolling duty in the forest jungle. They stopped tractor No. USR 5958 driven by the appellant. Munshi Ram accused was sitting on the mudguard. Munshi Ram shot fire f...
Mangal Singh Thapa and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR337]; (2006)ILLJ325UC
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enforce the notification dated September 8, 1994 and to absorb the services of the petitioners and treat them as regular employees in the establishment of the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Commission.2. Briefly stated the petitioners are employees of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun and have been working as Technician-cum-Operator in K.D.M.I.P.C. Central Air Conditioning Plant and Pump House. The petitioners No. 1 to 6 are working as contract labour of the respondent No. 4 and petitioner Nos. 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 19 to 26 are the contract labourers of respondent No. 5. The petitioner Nos. 7, 10 and 18 are the contract labour of the respondent No. 6 and the petitioner Nos. 11, 13, 14 and 17 are the contract labour of the respondent No. 7. The petitioners are being paid a fixed amount of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2,500.3. The petitioners have submitted that U...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »