Uttaranchal Court December 2006 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.
Daulat Singh Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1854
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 19-3-1990 passed by Shri S. K. Misra, the then Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in S.T. No. 35/1987, State v. Daulat Singh, convicting the accused-appellant Under Section 302/201, IPC and sentencing for life imprisonment, as such, they are being decided by the common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2001 has been preferred by the accused-appellant, Daulat Singh by engaging his counsel whereas Jail Appeal No. 2063 of 2001 has been preferred by the same accused-appellant from Jail.2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the marriage of Lajjawati Devi-deceased was solemnized with the accused-appellant, Daulat Singh. After six months of the marriage, they started living separately from the father of the accused-appellant. Whenever the deceased-Lajjawati Devi used to come to her parental house she used to demand money from her parents for giving it to her husband. Her parents gave money several ti...
Hukam Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC919(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list dated 26.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) of the Lecturers of Panna Lal Bhalla Inter College, Haridwar. A mandamus has further been sought to declare the petitioner Officiating Principal of said college.2. Heard earned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was a Lecturer in English since 15.1.1981 with Murli Manohar Inter College Ishpurteel, district Muzaffarnagar. He was transferred from said college to Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar on 21.7.1997 and since then continuously working as Lecturer of English in said college. Respondent No. 4 Surendra Singh Beniwal was promoted as Lecturer in English w.e.f. 6.11.1989, which is clear from the seniority list dated 26.12.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). However, respondent No. 3, i.e., Manager of t...
Mohan Singh Panwar Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2069
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7-11-1986, passed by Sri D.L. Soni, Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1985, thereby convicting the accused appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 306, IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution case Smt. Veena daughter of Amar Singh Pundir was married to the accused appellant Mohan Singh on 29-5-1985 according to the Hindu religious rites. Both husband and wife were living in rented house in Srinagar Town. Accused was employed in Telegraph Department. On 30-8-1985 Pratap Singh son of Vikaram Singh submitted a written report Ex. Ka-1 to the S.O. Police Station Srinagar Garhwal. In this report it has been mentioned that Mohan Singh has taken his wife to hospital as she was...
Ramesh Chandra Chauhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC925(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Both these writ petitions have same question of law involved, as such, the same are being taken together for their disposal by this common judgment.2. By means of aforesaid two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorart quashing the order dated 11.8.2003, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioners, who are promotees, have been directed to be placed in the seniority list below the direct recruits, appointed in the year 1994.3. Heard earned Counsel for the parties.4. The factual matrix of the dispute is that the petitioners were appointed initially as Assistant Agriculture Inspector, Group-Ill in Agriculture Department, some time in 1970's. Initially they were promoted on ad hoc basis against Group-II as Soil Conservator Inspector between 1986-89. Later they were appointed against substantive vacancies in Group II. It appears that prior to U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules, 1993, came into force w.e.f. 19.6.1993, ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›