Uttaranchal Court February 2010 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.
Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
V.K. Bist, J. 1. The petitioner is an incorporated company under the Companies Act having its registered office at Ikbalpur, District Haridwar and owns a vaccum pan sugar factory at Ikbalpur, District Haridwar. On 07.10.2009 the Cane Commissioner, Uttarakhand, in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 12(2) of the Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supplies and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), determined 64.00 lac quintals of sugarcane as the requirement of petitioner sugar mill for the crushing season 2009-10. On 30.11.2009 the respondent No. 2 passed an order reserving and assigning the cane area to various sugar mills. The sugar mill of the petitioner was allotted 66.79 lac quintals of sugarcane. By this order several cane centres were assigned to the petitioner but four centres, namely, Budhahedi (Budhaedi A), Raipur Dareda (Budhahedi B), Nagla Khurd-A and Nagla Khurd-B were taken away from the petitioner and were assigned to respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by...
Kishor and Tilwa @ Til Ram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This order shall decide the above-mentioned two criminal appeals as both these appeals have arisen out of the same incident of crime and impugn the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital. For facility of reference, the facts are noticed from Crl. Appeal No. 296 of 2003 filed by accused Tilwa @ Til Ram, etc.2. Seven accused persons, namely, Tilwa @ Til Ram, Mohan, Tara, Kishor, Rajan @ Rajendra (sons of Bhagat Ram), Mohan Ram Tamta (son of Prem Ram) and Suresh (son of Madav Ram) were tried by the Additional District Judge, IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital for committing a double murder of Ram Parsad and Suresh (son of Kishan Ram) in a riverside fracas. Accused Tilwa @ Til Ram, Mohan and Kishor (sons of Bhagat Ram) stood trial for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 504 and 506 I.P.C., whereas, accused Tara, Rajan @ Rajendra, Suresh, and Mohan Ram Tamta w...
Ex Lance Naik Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J. 1. The appellant-Ex Lance Naik Krishan Kumar was inducted into the service of the Army, when he was only 21 years old as a Cook in the Corps of Engineers on 24.07.1997. During 2004-2005 he was posted with 60 Engineer Regiment, at Tezpur. Through a confidential communication dated 19.02.2005, he was informed that he was to be tried by a summary court- martial on 23.02.2005. The three charges levelled against him, on the basis whereof he was to be tried, were appended to the aforesaid communication dated 19.02.2005. In the first charge it was alleged, that he had during the night intervening 04.02.2005 and 05.02.2005 at 00.30 hours scaled the balcony of the first floor of house No. 14/2 Chandpur Enclave, Tezpur, belonging to Major Anuj Bhatnagar, of 118 Field Organization, with a help of a ladder. It was alleged that he had done so with the intent of committing the offence of rape on Mrs. Shikha Bhatnagar, wife of the aforesaid Major Anuj Bhatnagar. On the basis of the ...
The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Anand Prasad
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
1. This Special Appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 23.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1673/2006 (S/S) filed by the petitioner (present respondent), where the writ petition has been allowed and a mandamus has been issued to the appellants to grant disability pension to the respondent @ 80 per cent disability from the date of his discharge from service.2. The brief facts of this case are as under:The respondent before this Court is a war veteran. He was enrolled in Mahar Regiment of the Indian Army on 21.2.1964 as a Sepoy. As a soldier of the Indian Army he fought for the country first in the Indo-Pak War in the year 1965, and then again in the Indo-Pak War in the year 1971. In this Indo-Pak war of 1971 the respondent sustained injuries during the warfare. As a result of the injuries sustained in the war, he had to undergo various treatments while being in the Indian Army, but ul...
Smt. Urmila Rawat W/O Sri Surendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhan ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Aagan Bari Karyakarti on 16/11/1987. While she was working on this post, an advertisement for Mukhya Sevika was made inviting applications from those Aagan Bari Karyakarti who had a minimum experience of 10 years as on 31st July, 2003. The petitioner applied for the said post and gave an experience certificate dated 14/12/2005 issued by the Child Development Project Officer indicating therein that the petitioner was working as an Aagan Bari Karyakarti since 16/11/1987 onwards. It transpires that a select list was prepared and, on that basis, the petitioner was given an appointment on 2nd November, 2006 and, since then, the petitioner has been working as a Mukhya Sevika.3. It transpires that a complaint was made by one Smt. Damyant...
Dhurat Singh @ Raju S/O Sri Ratan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent.3. Dhurat Singh, appellant was sent for trial for offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his uncle Kaur Singh, resident of Khalsi. He was convicted for the above offence and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo imprisonment for 6 months.4. On 23.11.2001 Kashmiri Devi, daughter of Kaur Singh (deceased) visited her father's house and found his father's cap and a lot of blood in the courtyard. Locks of the both rooms were lying open. She went to Dilchand PW 1 and narrated the above facts. Dilchand immediately accompanied her to the house of Kaur Singh. With the help of a torch they entered into one of the rooms and found dead body of Kaur Singh lying there. Since it was night time complainant Dilchand approached Patwari of Bardogi area on the next day and submitted ...
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The instant controversy relates to, a consideration of claims of Scheduled Tribe candidates, for appointment to the posts of Trade Tax Officer, Grade-I (subsequently re-designated as Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax) and Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II.2. Reservation for Scheduled Tribes, claiming appointment by way of direct recruitment, has been determined under Government Order dated 31.08.2001. The aforesaid Government Order lays down a 100 point roster. In the aforesaid 100 point roster, every 24th roster point is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The first roster point for Scheduled Tribe candidates falls at serial No. 24, and the second one falls at serial No. 28, and so on and so forth.3. In the first instance, for filling up both the aforesaid posts, i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax and Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II, the State Government issued an advertisement on 25.08.2002. Through the aforesaid advertisement, besides other posts, it invited appli...
Patu and Teerath Pal Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
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 25.11.1997 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1995, State v. Patu & Teerath Pal, whereby the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused Under Section 376(2)(g) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced each of them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default, one years' additional R.I each was awarded.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant Telu Ram (P.W.2) lodged an FIR stating therein that on 11.3.1994 at about 8 AM, his daughter Km. Babli, aged about 10 years, had gone in the field to cut the fodder (BARSIN), where the appellants-...
Madan Chandra Bhandari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
1. The case set up in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner was inducted as a Supervisor in the Public Works Department of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh on 21.7.1965. He was then re-designated as an Overseer in the pay scale of 120-2 50 by an order dated 22.12.1965. It is also pointed out that at the time of the appointment of the petitioner, the post of Overseer was not subject to the purview of the State Public Service Commission. It is pointed out that w.e.f. 7.7.1967, the post of Overseer was brought under the purview of the State Public Service Commission, whereupon, the petitioner was confirmed against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.3. 1989.2. One Mukhtar Singh Dhillon approached the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at Allahabad by filing Writ Petition No. 2412 of 1980, whereupon the aforesaid Mukhtar Singh Dhillon was granted seniority from the date of his initial appointment. Based on the decision rendered by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at Allahab...
Sanjay Chaudhary Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. This 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 14.05.1996 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Special Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1993, State v. Sanjay Chaudhary, whereby the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.2.1993, P.W.4 S.O. Harish Chandra Singh along with P.W.2 Constable Khem Singh arrested the appellant-accused near the Dharamshala on Haldwani Road, Tallital, District Nainital. It was also stated that the appellant-accused was asked to be searched before a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »