Uttaranchal Court July 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.
Puran Chandra Joshi Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC115
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus, commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as a Public Call Office (hereinafter referred as P.C.O.) Operator in the academic premises of the respondents. Further a mandamus has been sought for regularization of the services of the petitioner against Class IV post.3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage worker in the P.C.O. in the Administrative Training institute at Nainital in the month of June, 1996. He was working as Operator in the P.C.O. His work was to record the' bills of the calls, to facilitate the officers/guests, using the telephone provided in the P.C.O. It is alleged that the petitioner continued to work in said capacity till November, 2004 and his wages were meanwhile enhanced ...
Mahaveer Prasad Malpani Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1008]; (2007)1LLJ44UC
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Vijay Bhatt, advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated March 5, 2005 as well as January 7, 2006 passed by the respondent No. 1/Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Uttaranchal Haldwani, District Nainital.3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is Managing-Director of Kumaon Resins Pvt. Limited. The proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was: initiated by the respondent No. 2.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that an ex parte award was made on March 5, 2005 in Misc. Case No. 153/2002. The petitioner has filed an application for recalling the said order, but the said application has been rejected. The ground for recalling of the order was that the petitioner could not be informed as will appear from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the application. The same is quoted below:Vernacular matter omitted.5....
Shankar and ors. Vs. Surendra Singh Rawat and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Utr15
ORDERJ.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by, the defendants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 26-4-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge/4th F.T.C. Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2001, and the judgment and decree dated 27-7-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar in O. S. No. 222 of 1991 titled Surendra Singh v. Rampat and Ors.2. The brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the land in dispute was purchased by the defendants/appellants by a registered sale deed from Jagir Singh. It is also alleged that the defendants/appellants had constructed over the property in dispute some construction in the year 1996 and also took the possession of the land in suit. The suit for perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction for the demolition of the construction raised by the defendants/appellants, and the mense profit and damages was filed before the Civil Judge (J. D.). The said suit was contested on the ground that the defendants/appel...
S.K. Srivastava and Etc. Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Utr52
P.C. Verma, J.1. The controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is similar and the validity of the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Uttaranchal Act of 2003) is under challenge. Therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by one and common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 923 of 2003, the petitioner has sought for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to declare Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003 ultra-vires, unconstitutional and to struck down the same as well as mandamus of this Court directing the respondents not to realize or recover any additional tax as per aforesaid provisions of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003.2.1. In Writ Petition No. 943 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to declare Section 6 of the Uttaranchal Motor V...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Prakash Tubes Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST151(NULL)
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench 2, Bareilly, Camp Haldwani.2. The brief facts for disposal of this case are that the assessee was carrying the goods from Indore to Delhi with a form No. 34 on July 21, 1989. When the vehicle of the goods reached Saiya Check-post at Agra, the assessing authority inspected the document and seized the goods. It was pointed out by the assessee that he was carrying the goods from Indore to Delhi which are being carried to Indore to Kashipur via Delhi. The assessing authority observed that there was a cutting in the invoice and the place of destination had been shown as New Delhi in place of Kashipur. It is also admitted to the department that the assessee was having a form No. 34 along with the goods. The assessing authority did not accept the version of the assessee and the assessing authority imposed a penalty under Section 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Tra...
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Hukum Singh
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Utr20
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This First Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1985 passed by Sri V. C. Agrawal, the then learned District Judge, Uttarkashi in Original Suit No. 6 of 1982 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for the recovery of Rs. 26,608.11 with proportionate costs and he further directed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum.2. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that a suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 40,000/- for the work done by the plaintiff/respondent for the construction of Badali Canal, Job No. 2, District Uttarkashi. According to the plaint allegations, the Irrigation Department, Uttarkashi invited the tenders for the construction of the said canal. According to the plaintiff/respondent, tenders for Rs. 1,31,469/- was accepted by the defendant/appellant for the execution of the said work. After accepting the said tender on 16th July 1978, an agreement was executed in between the plaintiff...
SaukIn Singh Negi and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC98; 2008ACJ1120
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 6th November, 1998 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 119 of 1995 by Sri R.K. Rastogi, the then District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli (in short the Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 50,000 in favour of the claimants/respondents as against the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with 12% interest per annum. However, the petition was dismissed against the New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 1.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 5th June, 1995 Shiv Prasad, father of claimant Nos. 3 to 6 and husband of claimant No. 2 was travelling by Bus No. USY-3268 belonging to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by appellant No. 3, from Pokhari to Karnprayag. The bus was over-crowded and the conductor of the said bus insisted him to ride on the roof of the bus. As ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›