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.
Ramesh Chand Vs. Smt. Tara Devi and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Dharam Veer, J. 1. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/40 1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Matrimonial Misc. Case No. 93/2002, Ramesh Chand v. Tara Devi Under Section 127 CrPC filed on behalf of the revisionist, whereby the Judge, Family Court has rejected the said application of the husband-revisionist and allowed the application of the wife-respondent No. 1 filed Under Section 125 CrPC and awarded maintenance with effect from the date of application i.e. 7.10.1992 amounting to Rs. 400/- per month to the wife-respondent No. 1 Tara Devi, Rs. 300/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 Minakshi & Rakesh till 23.6.1998, Rs. 200/- per month to Purnima till the date of her death, Rs. 300/- per month to respondent No. 4 Gajendra till June, 1998, Rs. 200/- per month to respondent No...
Smt. Neelam Sharma Vs. the Government of India and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
CLMA No. 889 of 2010 1. Learned Counsel for the respondents does not oppose the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.2. In view of the above, CLMA No. 889 of 2010 is allowed. Delay in filing the application for restoration of the main Appeal is condoned.MCC No. 56 of 2010 3. For the reasons indicated in the application, we are of the view that the order dated 23.6.2009 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 145 of 2008 in default deserves to be recalled. The same is accordingly recalled. The aforestated Special Appeal is accordingly restored to its original number.Special Appeal No. 145 of 2008 4. The appellant was inducted into the service of respondents as a Lower Division Clerk on 27.3.1987. A few months thereafter, on 27.7.1987 the appellant tendered her resignation from service. The resignation submitted by the appellant was accepted on 8.8.1987. The order dated 8.8.1987 was assailed by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 7633 of 1995 before...
Smt. Anita Sagar and ors. Vs. Chairman, Nainital-almora Kshetriya Gram ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
1. The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Nainital-Almora Regional Rural Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) as a Probationary Officer from the reserved category of schedule caste candidates on 20.3.1985. Onward promotion from the post of the Probationary Officer, (which falls in the category of Junior Manager Grade Scale-I - hereinafter referred to as JMGS-I) is to the Junior Manager Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as JMGS-II). It is not a matter of dispute that the rules regulating promotion from JMGS-I to JMGS-II were promulgated in 1998. Under the aforesaid rules, promotion from JMGS-I to JMGS-II is regulated under the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'.2. In so far as the issue of seniority is concerned, the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 15 in the category of Probationary Officers. Based on the aforesaid position of the petitioner in the seniority list, he was undoubtedly senior to all other scheduled caste candidates, who were eligible f...
Kamla Rani and anr. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
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 Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.10.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 1989, State v. Smt. Kamla Rani and Anr., whereby each of the appellants/accused, viz., Kamla Rani and Jagdishwar Prasad have been convicted under Section 304B & 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and each of them has been sentenced to R.I. for 10 years Under Section 304B IPC, but no separate sentence was awarded to the accused appellants Under Section 498A IPC. However, the appellants accused were acquitted of the charges of offence punishable Under Section 306 IPC.2. Appellant No. 1 Smt. Kamla Rani died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, appeal of Smt. Kamla Rani stood abated by the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by this Court.3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kamle...
Alok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
1. Before proceeding with the matter, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 insisted that the proceedings in this case have been initiated for extraneous considerations, as the petitioner in this case is a non-existing person. He also asserted that the petitioner is not interested in any public issue, and that, the instant petition had been filed only to harass respondent No. 4. He further stated that the instant writ petition was wholly misconceived, on account of the fact that, the solitary basis on which the instant writ petition was filed, was information obtained by the petitioner from one Shivam Sharma under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is pointed out that the litigation between the aforesaid Shivam Sharma and respondent No. 4 is pending. It is, therefore, suggested that the instant Public Interest Litigation, is motivated at the hands of the aforesaid Shivam Sharma.2. We have considered the issue of maintainability of the instant writ petition on the basis of the submis...
Smt. Neelam Bisht and anr. and Smt. Bhagwati Rawat and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. This petition was finally decided on 15.09.2009. The applicants were not party in the writ petition. They have moved two applications. Application No. 8877 of 2009 has been moved for their impleadment as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the array of parties in the writ petition. Ground shown in the application is that the applicants were necessary party in the writ petition and if the petitioners are granted designation of lecturer grade, their seniority would adversely be affected. Application No. 777 of 2009 has been moved for reviewing and recalling the judgment and order in which same ground has been taken. Another ground taken in the review application is that petitioners have misled the Court by submitting that they teach Physical Education in the Intermediate Classes whereas this fact is incorrect. Other grounds in the review application touch the merit of the case.2. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate for th...
Keshar Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 17.12.2009, vide which he has been transferred from district Nainital to district Pithoragarh. When this case came up for hearing on 15.01.2010, an ex parte ad interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, staying the operation of the impugned order dated 17.12.2009. Thereafter, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In fact, two counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 & 3, and the other, on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 & 4.2. It is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned transfer order has been passed at the behest of the Forest Minister, Sri Bishan Singh Chufal. Despite having named the aforesaid Minister, as being responsible for his transfer, Sri Bishan Singh Chufal has not been impleaded as a party respondent. But then, there was possibly no necessity of doing so on account of the fact, that no allegations of ...
Sandhya Bhatt Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
1. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally, whereupon by order dated 7.9.1999 her services were terminated. The appellant assailed the aforesaid order on the administrative side, whereupon by an order dated 8.11.2000, the termination order was revoked, and in its place, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant.2. The order dated 8.11.2000 was impugned by the appellant by approaching this Court through Writ Petition (SS) No. 469 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, for reasons of delay and latches, by an order dated 19.6.2008.3. The order dated 19.6.2008 disposing of the Writ Petition (SS) No. 469 of 2008 is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant.4. The solitary contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that in the writ petition the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this Court. Needless to...
Sarjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Af ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for the appellant, Ms. Beena Pandey, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. By means of the present special appeal the appellant/petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.2008 by which his Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6064 of 2001 (Old No. 37555/1998) has been dismissed.3. By the aforesaid writ petition which was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the appellant/petitioner had challenged the order dated 8.10.1998 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) by which his selection to the post of constable was cancelled. Subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition, it was transferred to this Court under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and renumbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6064 of 2001.4. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement to the post of constable in U.P. Police, the appellant/petitioner had filed his a...
Ashok S/O Chohal Singh and Raj Kumar S/O Baljit Singh Vs. State of Utt ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. This criminal appeal, preferred by the appellants 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 22.2.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in S.T. No. 177 of 1990, State v. Ashok and Anr., whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellants under Section 365 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the IPC) and sentenced each of them to five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was sentenced to additional imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that Prem Singh (PW1) lodged a FIR at Police Station Manglore stating therein that on 23.9.1988 at about 02:30 PM his nephew (BHANJA) Sushil Kumar was grazing buffaloes in the forest. He w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »