Uttaranchal Court December 2009 Judgments

Sri Bhagwati Prashad Goel S/O Late Sri Mam Raj Goel) Vs. the District ...

Court: Uttaranchal

B.S. Verma, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27-4-2005 and the order dated 22-2-2007 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 annexed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 to the petition.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the respondent No. 3 Hem Chandra Bansal moved an application for release of the shop No. 781, situate in Sadar Bazar Ranikhet, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground of bona fide requirement with the allegation that the disputed shop was let out to the petitioner on rent @ Rs. 400/- per month about 20 years back; that the son of the applicant- respondent No. 3, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bansal, is unemployed and to put him in the business, the disputed shop is required by the applicant. The petitioner-opposite party is a wealthy person in Ranikhet and h...

Ex Sepoy VipIn Kumar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:A) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 10.11.2005 (annexure-10), 28th December, 2006 (annexure -12) and 10th July, 2008 (annexure-14), passed by respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively, holding the same as illegal and ultra vires of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961;B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to treat the disability of the petitioner as attributable to the military service and grant him, with effect from 15.01.2005, the disability pension with the disability element at 100%, service element at 2/3rd of the full pension as relevant to petitioner's rank/grade, and 'constant attendance allowance' at the applicable rate and issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) accordingly, within a peremptory time period to be fixed by the Hon'ble Court in its own wisdom;C) To award interest at the rate of 18% per annum w...

Swami Rama Institution of Education Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.2. The petitioner is an institute which is run by a trust. According to the petitioner, this institute runs a B.Ed. course for which recognition has been granted to it by the National Council for Teacher Education. It is the case of the petitioner that once such a recognition has been granted, it is sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner has the eligibility and the qualifications to run such an institute and the affiliation with an university for grant of a degree is a mere formality.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ravi Babulkar is relying upon Clause (6) of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which says that since the petitioner has already been granted recognition under Section 14 (6) and such a communication has been received by the university, it is the mandatory duty of the university to grant affiliation to the institute under Section 14 (6) (a). Section 14 of the Nati...

Surendra Singh Negi (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard Sri Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioners as well as Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.2. The petitioners before this Court are the legal heirs of one Sri Surendra Singh Negi who as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, had filed this writ petition in the year 2006 against the order of his compulsory /pre-mature retirement from service. During the pendency of the writ petition Sri Surendra Singh Negi (the petitioner) had passed away and consequently vide orders of this Court his legal heirs have been substituted who are presently before this Court as petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. widow and the sons of the petitioner, respectively.3. For sake of convenience Sri Surendra Singh Negi, now deceased, shall be referred to as the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 17.3.1970 on the post of 'Draftsman' in the Public Works Department of...

Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Premium Taxcons Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Uttranchal)308

J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Through the instant Appeal, the Revenue has assailed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.02.2006 (while disposing of ITA No. 3612/Delhi/01), pertaining to the assessment of M/s Premium Taxcons Pvt. Ltd., Danpur, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal for the assessment year 1998-1999.2. It is not a matter of dispute that the controversy raised by the Revenue in the instant Appeal pertains to 'book profit'. It is also not a matter of dispute that the controversy is to be adjudicated in terms of the mandate of Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 115JA (aforementioned) is being extracted hereunder:115JA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the total income, as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April...

Virendra @ Tara Chand Vs. the State

Court: Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J.1. This criminal 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 05.12.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1996, State v. Virendra @ Tara Chand, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Under Section 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant-accused was further convicted Under Section 366 IPC and was sentenced to five years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In case of default of fine imposed Under Section 376 IPC, R.I. for a term of one year and in case of default of fine imposed Under Section 366 IPC, six months' R.I. was further awarded.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire mat...

Sanjeev Sehgal S/O Sri Charan Das Sehgal Vs. A.D.J. 4th F.T.C. and ors ...

Court: Uttaranchal

B.S. Verma, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6- 8-2003 passed by respondent No. 1 annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2 Bana Ram Taneja (since deceased) was allowed and the release application moved by him under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) has been allowed.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the deceased respondent No. 2 Bana Ram Taneja filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority alleging therein that the applicant is landlord of three shops situated at Krishnanagar Colony Kankhal, Haridwar. Out of which two shops are given on rent while in the third shop, the elder son of the applicant is doing his business. The application for release has been filed show...

Kartar Singh and anr. Vs. State

Court: Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J.1. This appeal, preferred by the appellants Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1997 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1992, State v. Kartar Singh and Anr., whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants Kartar Singh and Sohan Singh under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for three years. However, the accused appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 307 and 411 IPC.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 19.12.1990, an FIR was lodged by Prem Chand Singh, Range Officer with the averments that in the night of 18/19.12.1990, the accused appellants committed theft of Sagon wood after cutting nine trees of Sagon from compartment No. 3 of Basgar Beet of forest department ...

Shri Dutt Ram (Since Deceased) (Smt. Kalawati Devi W/O Late Dutt Ram a ...

Court: Uttaranchal

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 12.04.1988, passed by District Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1986, whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1986, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Almora) in Suit No. 1 of 1985, is affirmed. [This second appeal was earlier decided by this Court on 11.12.2003 but the apex court has set aside the same vide order dated 25.04.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5473 of 2004, and remitted the matter back for fresh decision].2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent entered into an agreement with defendant Dutt Ram (since deceased) on 02.12.1964, after accepting Rs. 3,000/-as consideration on the condition that on his failure to repay the said amount within three years, the defendant shall sell the three shops in ...

Dr. Smt. Pushp Lata Bisht W/O Sri Khimraj Singh Bisht, Assistant Teach ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.06.2007, passed by respondent No. 1 and consequential order dated 20.06.2007, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby it is intimated that the petitioner's case does not fall within the eligibility criteria fixed for regularization. A mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondent No. 1 giving benefit to the petitioner under Section 5 of Uttarakhand Act No. 4 of 2005 (Uttaranchal Non Governmental Education (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2005).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on their behalf.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner holds Post Graduate Degree in Hindi as well as in Sanskrit. She also holds B.Ed, degree. Not only this, the petitioner possesses Ph.d. in Hindi. It is stated that she stood first in the High Sc...