Uttaranchal Court May 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.
Dr. T.D. Padalia and anr. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Utr11
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. The writ petition is admitted.2. This writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Judgment and order dated 15-4-2000 and 14-10-1999 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively), By the order dated 15-4-2000, the application for amendment of written statement/counter claim under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. (paper No. 265-A) filed by the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 250/- and the objection of the plaintiffs paper No. 268-C has been rejected. By the order dated 15-4-2000 the revision preferred by the petitioner-plaintiffs has been rejected by the District Judge Nainital.3. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a Civil Suit No. 84 of 1988 for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Written statement was filed in the suit, issues were framed and the suit was fixed for final he...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Deputy General Manag ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR772]
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Shri Ramji Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.2. By the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Nainital.3. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the suit filed on behalf of plaintiff/respondent, was not barred by the provisions of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunal)Act, 1976?(2) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which had been filed by the plaintiff/respondent, praying for his appointment on the post of Conductor in the Corporation?(3) Whether, the defendant/respondent has right to be appointed on the basis of waiting list after its expiry, which is prepared from time to time and the same is valid for one year or till the next waiting list is prepared?4. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the ...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. R.B. NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Utr87
1. The disputed property involved in both the above appeals belongs to the same and the one Sugar Factory at one site and similar controversies are involved in these cases, hence both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. F.A. No. 15/2002, arise out of the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2001, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in O.S. No. 4 of 1992, R.B. Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants/appellants not to interfere and evict the plaintiff from the peaceful possession of the suit property.3. F.A. No. 9/2003 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-1 -2003, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, in O.S. No. 03/1992, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed against the defendant/appellants.4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff/r...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Nainital Seeds Corporation and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Utr19
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Nainital on 15-5-1995 in Original Suit No. 40 of 1992, whereby the suit was dismissed with costs and all securities/equitable mortgages of immovable properties were released from encumbrances. The Truck No. UGP/4671 was also released to stand as security.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. 5 of 1970. Its Head Office is situated at Mandvi, Baroda in the State of Gujarat and a Branch Office at Kashipur, District Nainital. Respondent No. 1-M/s. Nainital Seeds Corporation is a partnership firm doing in production and marketing of certified quality of seeds after purchasing raw seeds from the seed growers approved by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 through respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 approached to the appellant/plainti...
Mahendra and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-10-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3249
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of these two petitions, (and a third one No. 950 of 2001 (Old No, 4435 of 1998)). moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity herein after referred as Cr. P. C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 14-9-1998, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in case crime No. 70A of 1998, State v. Mahendra and Ors. whereby the said Court summoned the petitioners as accused after rejecting the final report, submitted by the investigating agency and accepted the protest petition, filed by the respondent/complainant-Rifaqat, s/o. Munna. The petitioners have further prayed that the final report be accepted and protest petition be rejected. The facts relating to all the petitions are same and strangely same petitioners have sought same relief again and again. Earlier on 4-3-2006, this Court passed following order on criminal misc. application No. 950 of 2001 (old No. 4435 ...
Dwarka Trading Corpn. Vs. Cheema Paper Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Utr83
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sushil Vashisth, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Chandra-mauli and Sri Suresh Bhatt, counsel for the respondent.2. By the present civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 1st May, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nainital.3. Briefly stated, suit was filed by the applicant being Suit No. 540 of 1996 by Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal against M/s. Cheema Papers Mills praying for a decree of an amount of Rs. 100,893.00 as well as the decree for pendente lite and future interest.4. In another suit (Suit No. 540 of 1996), the plaintiff Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has claimed in paragraph 8 of the plaint that vide Invoice No. 9/6 April, 1992 Paper weighing 437 Kg. was supplied to various firms and the consumers have complained to the plaintiff Ravindra Kumar about the bad quality of papers, when he sought to receive t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›