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.
Rajeev Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
1. The appellant contested elections during the course of the Parliamentary General Elections-2009 from 5-Haridwar Parliamentary Constituency. One of the other candidates who had also contested for the same Parliamentary Constituency as the appellant was respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 succeeded in the electoral process and was declared elected by the Returning Officer/District Magistrate, Uttarakhand Parliamentary Constituency No. 5-Haridwear. The appellant has preferred an election petition so as to assail the election of respondent No. 5, which is pending consideration before this Court.2. It seems that the appellant could not digest the fact that the respondent No. 5 had been declared elected inasmuch as he was not satisfied just with the filing of election petition. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (MS) No. 1621 of 2009 seeking a writ in the nature of quo-warranto for the removal of respondent No. 5 by asserting that he was disqualified to...
Bijendra Singh Sajwan S/O Late Sri Padam Chand Sajwan Vs. the State of ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri U. K. Uniyal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kothari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. B. S. Negi, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order of termination dated 19th May, 1993 passed by the Principal, Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, Uttarkashi.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was initially employed in the Indian Army and, after being relieved from the Army, the petitioner was given a fresh employment in the Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, Uttarkashi, w.e.f. 23rd July, 1969. It is alleged that an incident took place in the year 1991 and that respondent no.3, who was the then Principal of the Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, mis-behaved with the petitioner's daughter, and to that extent, a criminal complaint was lodged against the respondent no.3 in the court of Ch...
Prakash S/O Natthu, Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated18.03.1996, passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions trial No. 117 of 1993, where by accused/appellant Prakash is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1993, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He is further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1993), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Other three accused/appellants, namely Channi (since deceased), Tilak Ramand Shauraj (since deceased) have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. During the pendency of this appeal, accused/appellants Channi and Shauraj have died, and appeal filed on their behalf...
Dr. H.S. Kutola Vs. Lokayukta and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. During the course of hearing, the following sequence of facts have been narrated to us:Tota Ram Kukreti (respondent No. 8 herein) addressed a complaint dated 12.06.2003 to the Lokayukta, Dehradun, making allegations in respect of the working of the Dairy Development Department. It is pertinent to mention, that the afore-stated Tota Ram Kukreti was working as a Bus Conductor in the said Department itself. Based on the consideration of the afore-stated complaint dated 12.06.2003, certain recommendations were made by the Lokayukta, Dehradun, on 14.10.2005. Accordingly, Sri D.K. Gupta was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to hold a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations made by respondent No. 8, by an order dated 02.05.2006. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner was not invited to participate in the afore-stated fact-finding inquiry. Sri D.K. Gupta (the Inquiry Offic...
Lake Development Authority Through Its Secretary Vs. Mahesh Chandra Jo ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Through the instant special appeal, the Lake Development Authority, Nainital i.e. the appellant herein has as sailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a number of cases disposed of collectively including Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4726 of 2001 filed by Mahesh Chandra Joshi. In the afore said writ petition, the petitioner had claimed regularisation. Vide an order dated 29.06.2006, the learned Single Judge had issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Lake Development Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the observations made in the judgment.2. During the course of hearing of the present special appeal, wherein learned Counsel for the respondent invited the Court's attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, and more particularly the observations made in paragraph 53 thereof, wh...
State of Uttarakhand and ors. Vs. Sanjay Singh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.Delay Condonation Application No. 388 of 2010 1. For the reasons indicated in the application, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the instant Special Appeal deserves to be condoned. The same is accordingly condoned.Special Appeal No. 2 of 2010 2. A bunch of writ petitions was filed in this Court raising identical issues. One of the aforesaid writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition (SS) No. 580 of 2009 was filed by the respondent Sanjay Singh and a few other similarly situated as him. The aforesaid writ petitions were prompted by the action of the appellants in not considering their claims for appointment against the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) advertised in June 2002, October 2004 and November 2004. The claim of the candidature of the petitioners was sought to be denied on account of the fact that they were treated as ineligible for consideration.3. In all the aforesaid writ petitions including Writ Petition (SS) No. 580 of 2009, a ...
Asian Education Charitable Society and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Mr. T.S. Bindra, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.2. A common question of law is involved in all these petitions. All the petitioners before this Court are Societies or schools run by societies. Each claims that the School is entirely private funded and since they are not 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), cognizance cannot be taken against them by Public Information Officers as well as by the State Information Commission, under the Act. Section 2(h) of the Act, which defines 'public authority' reads as follows:(h) 'public authority' means any authority or body or institution or self-government established or constituted,--(a) by or under the Constitution;(b) by any other law made by Parliament;(c) by a...
Prashant Jaiswal and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate alongwith Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri V.P. Bahuguna, Advocate for the intervener.2. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being decided by a common judgment. In all these petitions an order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Uttarakhand has been challenged, which has been passed under Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which the State Government has formulated a motor route. The main ground for challenge in these writ petitions is that Section 68(3)(ca) which was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by way of an amendment, known as Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994), stood repealed in the year 2001 by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act No. 30 of 2001). Hence, since these provisions i.e. C...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the interveners.2. Since controversy involved in all these writ petitions is common, these the writ petitions are being decided by a common order.3. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the State Government dated 19.2.2008 and the consequent invitation of the tenders, by the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar vide publication notice dated 23.2.2008 in 'Dainik Amar Ujala' newspaper.4. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that Zila Panchayat, Haridwar had published one notice in daily newspaper called 'Dainik Badri Vishal' dated 3.1.2008 inviting tenders for execution of different civil works, which were mentioned therein. The petitioners being registered contractors of respondent No. 2...
Sharif S/O Chuttan Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.1997, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1992, whereby appellant-Sharif has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C), and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-In default of payment of fine, the trial court has directed the convict to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.2. Heard Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Brief Holder for the State.3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.08.1991, at about 9:00 p.m. in Mohalla Khatari, within the limits of P.S Ramnagar, deceased Nayeem alias Ballu, had some altercation with accused/appellant Sharif. After heated exchange of words, Sharif (accused/appellant) took out knife and inflicted an injury ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »