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.
Taufeeq Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
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 4.8.1998 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 122/1998, State v. Taufeeq Ahmad, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 377 and 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced to undergo 4 years' RI under each of the Sections and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. In brief, the prosecution case is this that PW1 Anwar Hussain lodged the report in PS Kaladhungi on 29.12.1997 with the averments that on the same day i.e. 29.12.1997 at about 5 pm his child was playing in the courtyard aged about 3 years, namely Mohd. Azaz (PW4). The appellant accused has taken Mohd. Azaz in his laps towards Mazar to the forest. When his child could not come to the house up to long time, then he was worrie...
Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The applicant Coastal Projects Private Limited has filed the instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.2. The applicant and the respondent M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Limited entered into a contract dated 07.09.2005. The aforesaid contractual agreement has been appended with the instant application as Annexure -1. Article 5.1 of the contractual agreement postulates the appointment of the arbitrator in case of differences or disputes between the parties. Article 5.1 is being extracted hereunder:5.1 It is specifically agreed by and between the parties that all the differences and/or disputes arising out of the Contract or touching the subject matter of the Contract shall be decided by the process of Settlement of Disputes, Conciliation and Arbitration as specified in Clause 39.0.0 of Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) (including Amendments / Clarifications, if any) and the provision...
Vishvakarma Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The controversy in the instant central excise appeal revolves around exemption claimed by the appellant under notifications bearing Nos. 49/2003-Central Excise and 50/2003-Central Excise, both dated 10.06.2003. The aforesaid two notifications are similarly worded. Relevant extract thereof (for adjudication of the present controversy) is being extracted hereunder:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the Schedule appended hereto, other than the goods specified in the Annexure appended hereto; and cleared from a unit ...
Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner was inducted into the employment of the department as a Senior Instructor (Agriculture Engineering) on the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. In due course of time, he was confirmed against the post of Senior Instructor by an order dated 22.12.1986.2. On the reorganization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, options were invited. The petitioner submitted his option for allocation to the successor State of Uttarakhand. He was, accordingly, allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand.3. Six posts of Extension Training Officer (Agriculture) were sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500. The post of Senior Instructor is the feeding cadre for promotion to the aforesaid post of Extension Training Officer. The petitioner claims, that he was promoted as Extension Training Officer by an order dated 30.06.2006 with the approval of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttarakhand. He was, however, reverted back to the pos...
Sanjai Khulbey Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. Appellant-Sanjay Khulbey has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.01.1998 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 316 of 1997 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he has further been ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment.2. The criminal law was set in motion on an application (Ex. Ka-2) moved by Smt. Sarita Kandpal (complainant) before the Station House Officer, P.S. Haldwani on 17.05.1993. As per the report, on 17.05.1993 at about 9:30 p.m. Smt. Sarita Kandpal (complainant) alongwith her brother Harish Chandra Durga Pal (hereinafter referred to Harish) was present at the house of her brother. All of a sudden two-three boys started pelting stones and brickbats. They came out and tried to stop the boys, however, accused-Sanjay Khulbey dragg...
Anekpal Singh Vs. the District Magistrate, Administrator, Nagar Palika
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. The petitioner before this Court has challenged the order dated 29.1.1986 and 8.2.1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun and the Commissioner, Garhwal Division respectively.2. The petitioner was an employee of Municipal Board, Dehradun. At the relevant time in the year 1982-83 while the petitioner was serving as a Cashier in Municipal Board, Dehradun (as it was at the relevant time), he was charged with embezzlement along with another employee. A due process of law was adopted, inasmuch as a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, and when the charges were established, his services were terminated vide order dated 29.1.1986.3. The case of the petitioner is that of the same charges, an FIR was also filed on 8.4.1986, which was registered as Crime No. 32 of 1986 under Section 409 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed by the Police before the appro...
Sobendra Singh S/O Vikram Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. Both these criminal appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi, hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. These criminal appeals, 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 12.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Trial No. 20 of 1994, State v. Sobendra Singh whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused/appellants Sobendra Singh, Trilok Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Jagjiwan Singh and Jagjitendra Singh and two other co-accused persons, namely, Ravindra Singh and Trepan Singh under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and sentenced each of them to pay fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 147 IPC and further fine of Rs. 250/- e...
Mohan Nath Goswami and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1479 of 2006, so as to impugn an order dated 18.10.2006. By the aforesaid order the authorities had decided to consider the claim of the aforesaid respondents for determining seniority in the cadre of Village Development Officers with reference to 24.11.1992. Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 accordingly approached this Court to assail the aforesaid determination rendered by the authorities. A learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition by an order dated 29.12.2007. The impugned order dated 18.10.2006, furnished to the said respondents through a covering letter dated 01.11.2006, was quashed.2. The order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 29.12.2007 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1479 of 2006 has been assailed through the instant special appeal by 18 appellants. The 18 appellants in the instant special appeal were inducted into the service of the Rural Development Departme...
Vijay Kumar Gurang Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. This appeal, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-12-2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in S.T. No. 2 of 2005, convicting the accused/appellant Vijay Kumar Gurang for an offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Chandra Gurang (deceased) was the wife of accused Vijay Kumar Gurang and both were residing in the house of Ravindra Pal on rental basis for the last 7-8 months, in Wing No. 6, Barrack No. 5/6, P.S. Cantt, Dehradun. They had three children. The complainant Kiran Devi was the sister of deceased and at the time of incident she was residing at Brahmanwala Niranjanpur, P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun. On 5.11.2004, at about 7.30 P.M. Ravindra Pal, landlord of the accused, informed Kiran Devi that the accused poured kerosene oil on the deceased and put her ablaze. On receiving this information, Kiran Devi came to the house of accused and there ...
Koshal Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. The above two appeals, arising out of judgment and order dated 07.06.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ 1st FTC, Hardwar were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant stood trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of 5 year old child (Arun) son of her husband's brother Pappu.3. Hari Chand, grand father of Arun (deceased) submitted an application (exhibit Ka 1) before SHO, Police Station - Mangalore on 26.06.1998 stating that his grand son Arun was playing in the courtyard on 22.06.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. At that time accused Koshal, wife of Vinod Kumar, sprinkled kerosene oil on him and set him on fire. According to him, occurrence was witnessed by Ramesho, wife of Mahendra Singh, brother of the complainant and his nephew Kanwar Pal Singh. They extinguished the fire. Arun was removed to the hospital, however, he died in Lok Priya Hospital, Meerut on 24.06.1998. The motive f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »