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.
Dileep and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
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 CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1997 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1994, State v. Dileep and Anr. whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 452/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and in place of sentence, the accused appellants were directed to be released on probation for a period of two years on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5000/- and two sureties of similar amount by each of the accused appellants before the Probation Officer and it was further directed that if the accused appellants would fail to keep the good conduct, they shall be sentenced by the court.2. During the pendency of this appeal, Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Counsel for the appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal @ Gopal filed a Criminal Miscellaneous App...
Mohammad Arif S/O Abdul HusaIn Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-18-2010
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 16.5.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No. 24/1992, State v. Mohd. Arif and Anr. by which the accused/appellant Mohd. Arif was convicted under Section 363 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and was sentenced to three years' R.I. He was further convicted Under Section 366 IPC and was sentenced to three years R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution story is that Vijay Pal (PW1) lodged a FIR in the Police Station Kirtinagar stating therein that the appellant/accused alongwith one co-accused Mohd. Haneef enticed away her daughter Km. Savitri, aged about 17 years, on 17.5.1992 at about 11 A...
Sri Narendra Singh GusaIn S/O Late Sri K.S. Gusain, Vs. Chairman State ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-18-2010
B.S. Verma, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31- 1-2007(Annexure-5) passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 3 of 2006, whereby the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal Uttarakhand, Dehradun (for short the S.T.A.T.) has allowed the revision petition of the respondent No. 4 and set aside the order dated 15-5-2006 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (for short RTA) in so far it related to item No. 10(3) regarding Premnagar-Gularghati motor road.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 Surendra Singh Rana applied for permits and they were granted permanent stage carriage permit in respect of Premnagar-Gularghati road vide its meeting dated 15-5-2006 in respect of item No. 10(3) passed by the R.T.A. vide Annexure-1 (collectively). One existing operator i.e. respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the order...
Harsh Wardhan Kala Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-18-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J. CLMA No. 9059 of 2008 (Delay Condonation Application in time barred SPA)We have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties on the issue of condonation of delay. For the reasons recorded in the application, we are satisfied, that the delay in filing the instant Special Appeal deserves to be condoned and the same is, accordingly, condoned.Special Appeal No. 274 of 20081. Harsh Wardhan Kala was undisputedly appointed as Laboratory Assistant in 1988. On the basis of Government Order dated 29.03.1989, he was placed in the sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 570-1100. On the recommendation of Samta Samiti, Uttar Pradesh, a Government Order dated 19.07.1989 was issued, whereby the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant was revised to Rs. 1400-2600. In order to claim salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600, he approached the High Court at Allahbad by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12822 of 1992. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 30.07.1997. A...
Garhwal Jal Sansthan Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.M. Pingal, the learned Counsel for the workman.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court allowing the application of the workman Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman was initially appointed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 180/- per month as a Junior Fitter on work charge basis in the year 1978. He worked continuously for three years and, consequently, the employer appointed the workman in a regular capacity on the post of Beldar in the pay scale of Rs. 165-215. It is alleged that the employer continued to take the work of a Junior Fitter which post was in a higher pay scale and, consequently, the workman approached the writ court of the Allahabad High Court praying that he should be regularized on the post of Junior Fitter. The said writ petition was disposed of with a dir...
Shibbu @ Shiv Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant 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 10.3.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 7/1993, State v. Mahesh and Ors. whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant accused Shibbu @ Shiv Prasad under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years. Co-accused Mahesh and Suresh have also been convicted under Section 363 & 366 IPC and were sentenced to 3 years' R.I. each under Section 363 & 366 IPC. Co-accused Mahesh has also been convicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the said offence. However, the present appeal has been preferred by Shibbu @ Shiv Prasad only.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant Narendra Datt Bahuguan lodged an FIR on 3.9.1992 at 6.10...
Naresh Chaudhary Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Chaudhary
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Prafulla C. Pant and V.K. Bist, JJ.1. This application has been filed by the applicant/respondent seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2005 passed by this Court in first appeal No. 71 of 2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the wife/appellant was allowed and the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar was set-aside. By the very judgment this Court allowed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.2. Sri Siddhartha Sah, the learned Counsel for the review applicant contended that the final order in the first appeal has been passed in absence of the counsel for the applicant (respondent in the first appeal No. 71 of 2004). He further submitted that the final order passed in the first appeal may be reviewed and the case may be decided.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the order dated 20.06.2005 which is the order under rev...
Harish Kumar Pal and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. The respondents issued a seniority list of Accountants in the year, 2002. The seniority list was assailed by the petitioners through Writ Petition (SB) No. 529 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the claim raised by the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid seniority list which was issued in the year, 2002 stands corrected in 2009. The petitioners have not disputed the seniority list finalized in the year, 2009.2. Promotion from the cadre of Accountants is to the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers. The seniority list of 2002 would therefore regulate the promotion of the Sub-Treasury Officer. By an order dated 6.8.2002 persons some of whom were junior to the petitioners were promoted as Sub-Treasury Officers on the basis of the seniority list of 2002. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners has now to be rectified in terms of ...
Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva Samiti Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner, i.e. Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva Samiti (herein after referred to as the 'Samiti'), is primarily engaged in construction of temples and 'dharamshalas' in Yamunotri, Himalayas. The other objects of the petitioner-Samiti include the propagation of religion, moral values and like activities through lectures etc. Besides the aforesaid, the Samiti is allegedly engaged in establishing schools for providing free education to poor girls and boys, and also for sponsoring brilliant students for higher education. The Samiti also claims to provide free food to poor and unattended people in the society. Despite the aforesaid, the construction of new Jagannath Temples and renovation of old temples and nomination of qualified worshipers in these temples, remains the primary function of the petitioner-Samiti.2. In the execution of their objectives depicted in the foregoing paragraph, it is the case of the petitioner-Samiti, that Bhagwan Jagannath, in idol form of ...
Neeraj Parihar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-16-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The city of Nainital has a lake called Naini Lake. On the north side of the lake there are two roads described as the Upper Mall Road and the Lower Mall Road. The Upper and the Lower Mall Roads are connected with one and another throughout. They in fact run along one another. The most affluent commercial area in the city adjoins the Upper Mall Road. The District Magistrate, Nainital (respondent No. 3), passed an order restraining vehicular traffic over the Upper Mall Road during the entire year between 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Additionally, during the summer season, when the city is overflowing with tourists vehicular traffic remains barred between 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. This restraint order has been in operation for a number of years.2. In implementing the aforesaid restraint order, rickshaws are also not permitted to ply over the upper mall. It is this restraint for plying rickshaws on the Upper Mall Road, that irks the petitioner. The instant writ petition has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »