Uttaranchal Court December 2008 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.
Zestha Developers Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr50
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner files rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record.2. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.3. Both the writ petitions have been preferred to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20-12-2007 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 8 to each writ petition). Prayer for mandamus has also been made to direct the respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders for registration of the sale deed executed on 25-4-2007 by respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioner.4. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions, in brief are that according to the petitioner, the petitioner is a company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of developing residential colonies. The petitioner entered into negotiations for purchase of la...
Bhagwan Singh Alias Babu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1987
Dharam Veer, J.1. This criminal appeal, preferred by the appellant 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 27-6-1991 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1989, State v. Bhagwan Singh and three Ors., whereby the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused, namely, Bhagwan Singh alias Babu, Ram Chander, Laxman Singh and Ashok for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and were sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. All the accused persons were further convicted Under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to one year's R. I. It was also directed that both the sentences of the appellants/accused were run concurrently.2. I have heard Sri R.S. Sammal, learned Counsel for the appellants ...
Omveer Singh Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr55
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. A very short, but interesting question of law, is involved for consideration in this case.2. The petitioner herein was a defendant in a civil suit filed by respondent No. 3 plaintiff under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, wherein, respondent No. 3 had sought eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. Even though initially petitioner-defendant had appeared in the said suit, but since long he chose to remain absent, the suit proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and ultimately ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court on 6-5-1993. On 12-5-1993. the decree sheet was drawn up, which as per established practice, procedure and law, contained statement of costs borne by the parties. The operative part of the ex parte judgment dated 6-5-1993, undoubtedly and admittedly did not contain any order or direction with respect to the payment of costs. Even though decree sheet was drawn up based upo...
Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: [2010]153CompCas715(Uttaranchal)
1. This company appeal arises from the order dated July 29, 2005, passed by the company judge of this Court in Misc. Company Application No. 11 of 2001, Amitabh Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Finance Ministry Government of India, New Delhi and Anr.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. (ATML) is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Prem Nagar, Dehradun. The company was established for manufacture of cotton and synthetic yarn and it started production in July, 1960. The Government of Uttar Pradesh extended term loan and the Punjab National Bank granted working capital assistance to the company. During 1970-75 the unit expanded its capacity and took term loans from the U.P.F.C. Unfortunately the unit became a sick industrial company on February 26, 1998. A reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the SICA') was...
Smt. Ramesho Devi Kashyap Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr41
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the preliminary enquiry report dated 27-11-2007 (An-nexure-1 to the writ petition) and orders dated 28-4-2008 (copies Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 1 has divested the petitioner of administrative and financial powers under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 and appointed Commissioner, Garhwal Division, to conduct the final enquiry.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties.3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, in the elections held in the year 2005. She took over the charge of said office on 18-11-2005, and since then was discharging her duties. The Vice-Chairman and nine othe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›