Uttaranchal Court December 2009 Judgments

Indian Lpg Cylinders Vs. Cestat

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2010(253)ELT393(NULL)

ORDERJ.S. Khehar, C.J.1. In sum and substance, the order, sought to be impugned through the instant Appeal, is the one rendered by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 12-4-2005, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal, seeking refund of excise duty, allegedly deposited provisionally, was dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same was declined on account of the fact that the claim had been made by the appellant beyond the period stipulated therefor.2. In view of the above, the solitary question that arises for our determination is, whether the appellant had really deposited excise duty provisionally, and, in case the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid refund claimed by the appellant was within the period of time stipulated there for under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the '1944 Act'). Section 11B o...

Smt. Mridula Chaube W/O Sh. Prasann Kumar Chaube and Smt. Neena Raina ...

Court: Uttaranchal

B.S. Verma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition be disposed of finally at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit.3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24-11-2009 ( Annexure-8 to the petition) passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Revision No. 80 of 2009 Sri Sushila Mittal v. Sri Anand Kukreti and Ors. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to allow the petitioners to be impleaded as parties in the proceedings of Original Suit No. 206 of 2004.4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Original Suit No. 206 of 2004 Smt. Sushila Mittal v. Anand Kukreti was filed by the respondent No. 1 in capacity of landlady of the disputed premises against the respondent No. 2 Anand Kukreti (defendant) fo...

Subhash and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Court: Uttaranchal

Alok Singh, J.1. Mr. Manish Arora, learned Counsel for the applicants.2. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.3. There is no need to serve notice upon respondent No. 2.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. By way of present petition, petitioners/applicants are challenging the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee refusing the request of the petitioners to accept fresh personal bonds and sureties for the newly added Section 308 IPC in the chargesheet.6. Brief facts of the present case are that First Information Report was lodged under Sections 325, 325, 504, 506, 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioners vide order dated 20.01.2007 were enlarged on bail in case crime No. 198 of 2006 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation chargesheet was filed against the petitioners adding Section 308 IPC along with Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Magistrate vide order da...

Krishan Lal Thakur Vs. Shri Shakti Trikha and anr.

Court: Uttaranchal

Alok Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for opp. party No. 1 and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opp. party No. 2.2. By way of present revision, the revisionist is assailing judgment/order dated 27.03.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistate, IInd, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 1171 of 1996, State v. Shakti Trikha, acquitting the accused/opp. party No. 1 herein under Sections 384, 506 and 411 IPC, Police Station Garhi Cantt, district Dehradun.3. Brief facts of the present matter are that revisionist/complainant lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 384 and 506 against the opp. party No. 1 at police station Garhi Cantt., district Dehradun alleging therein that complainant is a General Manager of Welfare Society which is a registered society formed/constituted with the object to serve old/aged people free of cost. The accused is Auditor and publisher of Kavita Express. F.I.R. ...

Rajesh Kumar and Digamber Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Court: Uttaranchal

Alok Singh, J.1. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.3. Since both the revisions are arising from one and common judgment passed by Trial Court and Appellate Court, hence, both the revisions are being taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common Judgment.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. Brief facts of the present case are that one detenue -Surendra Singh was directed to be taken to Government Hospital, Gopeshwar for medical examination on 28.01.1994 by both the revisionists (accused). Both the accused revisionists took the custody on 28.01.1994 and took him along to District Government Hospital. However, in the intervening night of 28.01.1994 and 29.01.1994 Surendra Singh escaped from the custody of both the accused. Hence, report was lodged against both the accused on 29.01.1994. Superintendent of Police, Chamoli granted permission/sanction to prosecute the accused as pe...

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: (2010)IILLJ173UC

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Ms. Seema Sirohi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Mehra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. The workman was appointed in the service of the Corporation on January 28, 1952 and after rendering 35 years of service was terminated by an order dated March 7, 1987 on account of a misconduct, namely, continuous unauthorized absence for 160 days. The order of termination was not challenged by the workman and it had attained finality. The workman, however, moved an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for gratuity for having rendered 35 years of service. The Prescribed Authority after considering the matter condoned the delay in filing the aforesaid application and allowed the same holding that the workman was entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,269.25 towards gratuity and also imposed 10% interest. The employer being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal which was dismissed and, consequently, the present wri...

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1753

Alok Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Sri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate appearing for the respondent. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent is taken on record.3. By way of present petition charges framed by learned Trial Court Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. vide order dated 20.08.2008 and Revisional Court's judgment dated 15.09.2009 are being assailed.4. Both the counsels fairly stated that neither accused nor prosecution were heard before framing the charges. Both the counsels fairly stated that Magistrate has failed to record his opinion.5. Sections 239 and 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure are as under:239. When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers t...

Dayaluram S/O Badriprasad Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/O Late Ram Kisha ...

Court: Uttaranchal

B.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally at the admission stage.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-9-2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1998 and the order dated 8-10-2009 passed by the District Judge Haridwar in Revision No. 28 of 2008 Dayalu Ram v. Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Annexure No. 5 and 7 to the petition respectively. By the order dated 22-9-2008, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment was decreed against the petitioner on the ground of material alteration and subletting as mentioned in the order. By the order dated 8-10-2009, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the decree was modified only to the extent that the defendant shall pay rent @ Rs. 50/- per month from 5-9-198 till the till date of delivery of possession to the pla...

Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its C.M.D. Vs. Smt. J ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/third party.2. This second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th of July 2009, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2008, filed by the defendants, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30th of August 2007, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal), in Suit No. 58 of 2005, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, is affirmed.3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs Janki Devi and Sona Devi (who are the present respondents No. 1 and 2) instituted the suit for declaration and injunction claiming title over certain land, acquired by the State Government for construction of Tehri Dam. They had sought the declaration that they are entitled to compensation and other benefits in respect of the land acquired. The suit was contested by the State of Uttarakhand, who was def...

Kanwar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Court: Uttaranchal

Alok Singh, J.1. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.2. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No. 1.3. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.4. Heard.5. Present petition is filed invoking Section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure assailing the cognizance order dated 30.12.2003, chargesheet dated 12.10.2003 in case crime No. 124 of 2002 (30 of 2003) under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC. Further prayer was made by the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceedings on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case No. 2728 of 2003 (State v. Kanwar Singh and Ors.).6. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1. Name of petitioner No. 1 was mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 07.01.1992 passed by the Record Officer. Respondent No. 2, co-owner of the petitioner No. 1, moved an application for recalling t...