Uttaranchal Court November 2007 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.
Hira Kalyan Das Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Utr46
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Mr. T.S. Doabia, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant.Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.They are heard on admission.2. Mr. J.P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal on the ground that the present Special Appeal is not maintainable on account of the specific bar contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.3. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 840 of 2001 (M/S).4. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 15-3-1990 (annexure III) and judgment and order dated 31-7-1984 (annexure II passed by the respondent No. 2);...
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Kamlesh Kumar
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC99
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, counsel for the respondent.2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.6.2002, passed by-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 229 of 1997, Kamlesh Kumar v. G.B. Pant University, whereby a sum of Rs. 30.000 has been awarded to the claimant towards compensation.3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent being Motor Accident Claim Case No. 229 of 1997, Kamlesh Kumar v. C.B. Pant University, claiming a sum of Rs. 1.50,000 towards compensation.4. According to the claimant, on 24.3.1997. he was going to his house at Kakpheri, Pant Nagar, Tehsil Kichha from Nagla as a pillion rider on scooter of his friend Rajeev Verma, as soon as they reached near Stadium, all of a sudden, a Jeep No. U.T.F. 104, which w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dehradun Club Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR88(Uttaranchal)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the common order dated June 6, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' New Delhi (for short, the ITAT) in I.T.A. Nos. 376 and 377/Del/2003 pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively, whereby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Department and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who set aside the recovery of interest under Section 154 calculated according to the provisions of Section 234B of the Act while revising the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated November 24, 2000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the demand of interest on the ground that it does not contain any reason for imposition of interest under Section 234B of the Act.2. We have considered the rival contentions put forth by Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned ...
Sunil Dutt Rathuri and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC612
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicants have filed the petition for quashing the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 122 of 2007 and Case No. 165 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 354 of I.P.C and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, (J.D.), Dehradun.2. Heard Ms. Prabha Noliyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners on admission and perused the record.3. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the documents filed before me, I am of the view that there is no flagrant injustice and abuse of process of Court in this case. The evidences are incomplete and hazy as yet.4. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial Judge. The petitioner shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in his defence before the Trial Court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated a...
Firoj Khan Vs. Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ2669
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. Lokpal Singh, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. This is the claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.3. By the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 6.6.2006 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 185 of 2003.4. Briefly stated, a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 185 of 2003 was made for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 towards compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. According to the claim petition, on 15.6.2003 at about 4.30 p.m. the claimant was going to his home Jamanpur Selakulai from Harbertpur along with Barkat Ali by scooter No. UP 07-J 6444 as pillion rider. As soon as the said scooter reached near Radhapur Bridge, the jeep No. UP 07-F 7244 which was being drive...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sofia Khatoon and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR355]; (2008)IILLJ47UC
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard T. A. Khan counsel for the appellant and Neeraj Upreti counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 52. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated February 4, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Pithoragarh.3. Claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition under Workmen Compensation Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the death of their son Saman Ali in an accident. According to the claimants their son was employed in the establishment of respondent No. 3. He died in an accident during the course of his employment. At the time of his death Late Saman Ali was 21 years of age. He was getting Rs. 3,750/- per month as salary.4. Respondent Preysssinet Prestressed Concrete Com., filed its written statement and admitted the alleged accident. It was submitted that the deceased was its employee and was getting Rs. 3,750/- per month as salary. Appellant insurance company has submitted that the wages sho...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›