Uttaranchal Court April 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.
ishwari Singh Rautela Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-17-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. A.S. Bisht, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the Municipal Board, Nainital and its Chairman and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the respondent No. 1 and 4, i.e., State of Uttarakhand and the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital.2. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Board, Nainital recently posted on 2nd January, 2009 and by the impugned order dated 1st February, 2010, the petitioner has been transferred to Bageshwar in the same capacity and, by the order of 2nd February, 2010, the petitioner is alleged to have been relieved from Nainital. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said orders, has filed the present writ petition.3. The controversy raised in the present petition lies in a narrow compass. The submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for...
P.S. Rawat Deputy Regional Officer and Vs. State of Uttaranchal Throug ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-17-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 121 of 2004 State v. P.S. Rawat and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was got lodged by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Ravi Devi, against the petitioners with Police Station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi, which was registered as crime No. 214 of 2003, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, I.P.C, after obtaining order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C from the Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. It is alleged in the first information report that the petitioners are officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The complainant respondent...
Abdul Jabbar S/O Sattar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttar ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-17-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.04.1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nainital, in criminal appeal No. 11 of 1996, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal of the revisionists on the point of conviction in respect of offences punishable under Section 147, 323, and 452 of I.P.C. The said court has further affirmed the sentence of the revisionist No. 1 Abdul Jabbar, revisionist No. 2 Shamsher, revisionist No. 3 Gaffar, revisionist No. 4 Intjar, revisionist No. 5 Eakruddin and revisionist No. 6 Shamshuddin. Only in respect of revisionist No. 2 Shamsher, the sentence was modified by the appellate court, and only fine was imposed in all the counts.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Abdul Hameed, filed a criminal complaint which was registered as criminal case No. 124 of 1990 against the revisionists stating that on 21.1.1990, ...
Rab Jeet Kaur Kohli D/O Harbhajan Singh Kohli, Vs. State of Uttarancha ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-17-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1907 of 2005 State v. Man Preet Singh and Ors. relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Asstt. Government Advocate for the State, and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that Taran Deep Kaur (deceased) got married to Manpreet Singh (son of petitioner No. 4 Harbhajan Singh) on 17.04.2002, at Haldwani. She died on 25.05.2004, in Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, as is apparent from Annexure -3 (page 45 of the petition). The said Institute diagnosed that Taran Dee...
Ramesh Chand Saini S/O Late Shri Khehar Singh Vs. High Court of Uttara ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-17-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. An advertisement was issued on 03.02.2005 inviting applications for filling up 13 vacant posts of Additional District & Sessions Judges. The petitioner, believing that he was eligible for the advertised posts, responded to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner's candidature was accepted and he was issued a roll number to appear in the written examination on 23.10.2005. Having qualified the aforesaid written examination, he was invited for an interview. The petitioner appeared for the interview on 09.09.2006. He claims to have performed well at the interview. Since his expectation did not fructify, he became aggrieved with the inaction of the authorities in not issuing any offer of appointment to him. The petitioner then addressed a representation dated 20.09.2006 highlighting the fact, that he was eligible for appointment (against the advertised posts). In response to the aforesaid representation, the petitioner received a communication dated 12.10.2006 inform...
Capt. V.N. Saxena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Aggrieved by an order, passed on the culmination of a Summary Court Martial dated 13.11.1990, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5782 of 1991 in the High Court at Allahabad. The aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. In this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was re-numbered as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1436 of 2001. The writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.07.2005, against which the respondents filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court. The matter was remanded back by the Apex Court for fresh consideration, vide order dated 01.04.2008. On receipt after remand, it was re-numbered as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2008. After the promulgation of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, a petition assailing the proceedings of a Summary Court Martial, and the order passed thereupon, would only lie to the Arme...
Anand Singh Dasila S/O Khusal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand Through S ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 14 of 2009, whereby said court has directed the revisionist Anand Singh Dasila (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 Smt. Bhagwati Devi (wife), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Bhagwati Devi got married to the revisionist Anand Singh Dasila 14 years before presenting the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. She pleaded that out of the wedlock a son was born, who was aged 11 years at the time of presentation of the application. It is further pleaded that the revisionist ousted the respondent No. 2 from his house and she was compelled to live in her parental house. She was beaten and had become retarded due to the injuries suffered ...
Baljeet Singh S/O Late Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand Thorough ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This is a restoration application MCRC No. 150 of 2010, for restoration of criminal misc. application (C-482) No. 35 of 2010, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 04.03.2010.2. Heard and perused the affidavit accompanying the application. In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 A.I.R.S.C.W, 1971, the restoration application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner/applicant shall argue the matter on the restored petition today itself. The application is allowed on the above condition. The Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 35 of 2010 is restored to its original number.(Urgency application No. 1399 of 2010 stands disposed of).3. Also, heard on the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, restored today.4. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1105 of 2009, Sunil Verma v. Baljeet Singh, relating to offence punishable under Section 138, of the Negotiable Inst...
Sunil Dutt and anr. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. This 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 29.8.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1992, State v. Sunil Datt and Anr. whereby the appellant Sunil Dutt has been convicted under Section 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307 and R.I. for six months under Section 506 IPC. Appellant Ghanshyam Dutt has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and RI for six months under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences of both the accused appellants were directed to run concurrently.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that PW1 Jai Dutt Mishra on 11.7.1990 at 6 pm, lodged a report with the ...
Arvind Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 8.3.2010 lodged by the respondent No. 3 as Case Crime No. 83/2010 under Section 420/467/468/471/504/120-B/507 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner had already filed the writ petition bearing No. 186 of 2010, Arvind Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., however after the detailed arguments were advanced by the parties, when the petition was going to be decided by the Court on merits, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of the Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to expedite his bail application and accordingly, on 18.3.2010 the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.4. The facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »