Skip to content

Uttaranchal Court June 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.

Jun 25 2007

Mohd. Sarwaryar Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-25-2007

Reported in: AIR2008Utr41

J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order No. 219/XIV-1/2007 dated 23-3-2007 and Order dated 24-3-2007 (Annexure No. 4 & 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and 3 to the writ petition.II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Chairman in Kisan Sewa Shahkari Samiti, Dakshini, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar till the completion of terms of Committee of Management.III) Issue a suitable writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.IV) Award the cost of the petition.2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was nominated by the State Government as Director on 29th September, 2004 in the Co-ope...


Jun 22 2007

Vidya Vinodray Makhecha Vs. Manubhai R. Patel and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-22-2007

Reported in: 2008ACJ2591

Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.8.85 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C. Case No. 70 of 1982, whereby the claim petition of the claimant was dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant Vidya Vinodray Makhecha was travelling with her family members in a Matador minibus bearing registration No. GRG 5550 from Chandigarh to Dehradun. The said vehicle was being driven by Babu Lal, driver, respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. On 3.11.1981 at about 7.45 a.m., near Subhash Nagar Bus Stop, the aforesaid minibus dashed against a tree in which the claimant Vidya Vinodray Makhecha, got injured.4. The claim petition was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, on the ground that the mishap in que...


Jun 14 2007

Hari Singh and anr. Vs. State

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-14-2007

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2133

J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1989 passed by Shri M.L. Singhal, the then Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in S.T. No. 30/1988 State v. Hari Singh, whereby the appellant-Hari Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for six years under Section 302 & Section 307, IPC respectively. The appellant-Inder Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and for six years under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 307/34, IPC respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently.2. The facts, in nutshell, are that Hari Singh and Inder Singh (appellants) are the cousins of Laxman Singh-informant and Kundal Singh-deceased. Mohan Singh P.W. 2 is the real uncle of appellants (Hari Singh & Inder Singh), Laxman Singh P.W. 1 and Kundal Singh-deceased. The family of the appellants-accused were not having good relations with the families of Kundal Singh (deceased) and Laxman Singh P.W. 1. They wer...


Jun 08 2007

Dewan Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-08-2007

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4412

Dharam Veer, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-6-1985 passed by Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Nainital, in Session Trial No. 70/198,3, State v. Dewan Singh and Ors. whereby, the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Nainital has convicted the appellant-Dewan Singh under Ss,. 307, I.P.C. and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, I860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and appellants-Ratan Singh, Kashmir Singh and Balbir Singh have been convicted under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. and Sections 323/34, I.P.C. The appellant-Dewan Singh was awarded sentence for a period of 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 307, I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sections 328/34, I.P.C. and in case of default of fine under the aforesaid sections, it was directed ...


Jun 08 2007

Mohan Chandra Tamta Vs. Ali Ahmad Alias Murli (D) and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-08-2007

Reported in: 2008(1)AWC1093; III(2008)BC430

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 17.4.1979, passed by learned Civil Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1975, whereby judgment and decree dated March 29, 1975, passed by Munslf, Almora, in Civil suit No. 20 of 1969, decreeing the suit for possession, is set aside and suit is dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.Brief facts of case are that Civil suit No. 20 of 1969 was filed by plaintiff/appellant Mohan Chandra Tamta, for recovery of the possession of the property, with the pleadings that a house bearing Municipal No. 166 (Old No. 96), situated in Mohalla Dhunikhola (Tirwakhola), is within the limits of Municipal Board, Almora. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is owner of the said building. Details or the property in suit are given in Para 1 of the plaint, stating that in the settlement of 1944, in Phat Khata No. 92, Muntakhib No. ...


Jun 07 2007

Rajendra Karnwal and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-07-2007

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3913

ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioners have challenged and sought quashing of the charge-sheet of criminal case No. 96 of 2006, State v. Prahalad Bhagat, relating to offences punishable under sections 498-A, 342, 506 of IPC, and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Kotdwar, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 Smt. Suman lodged a first information report with Police Station Kotdwar on 17-3-2006, against the petitioners alleging the harassment for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, wrong confinement and threat to life. The police investigated the crime, and after investigation submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the accused (present petitioners), before the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that bare reading of the contents of the f...


Jun 04 2007

Kamla Prasad Nautiyal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Uttaranchal

Decided on: Jun-04-2007

Reported in: 2009ACJ1166

Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. S.N. Babulkar, counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Sah, counsel for the respondent.2. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 14.10.1998 passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,12,380.86.3. Briefly stated according to the plaintiff he had been the owner of stage-carriage bus No. USO 839 since 1986. The said vehicle was insured with the defendant. On 20.3.1992 when the bus was going to Chamiyala, it met with an accident near Pilakhi and fell down into a ditch. In the accident 25 passengers along with the bus driver succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the plaintiff in the accident, damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 was caused to the bus. The plaintiff had furnished estimate and other documents to the officer concerned of the defendant. The plaintiff got the said vehicle repaired at the cost of about Rs. 1,30,000 and put forth his cl...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial