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.
Dinkar Khosla S/O Late Sri Kesho Ram Khosla Vs. A.K. Mehta, the Manage ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th of April 1997, passed in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 1996, whereby first Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, has allowed said revision, and set aside the order dated 27.05.1996, summoning the accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 498 of 1995, Dinkar Khosla v. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors., relating to offences punishable under Section 418, 406, 120-B of I.P.C.3. Brief facts of the case are that Dinkar Khosla (complainant / revisionist) filed a Criminal Complaint No. 498 of 1995, stating that his father Kesho Ram Khosla died on 12.02.1994, who had executed a Will in his favour, and he is entitled to the invested amount of the deceased, in Unit Trust of India (U.T.I.), Post Office and Fixed deposits K.D.Rs. in the banks. The deceased had two K.D.Rs. Nos. 874 of 1993 and 875 of 1993, respectively, with the Canara Bank, Arhat Bazar. It appears that the complainan...
Ram Lal Vs. Trilok Singh Chauhan
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/ Additional District Judge Rishikesh in SCC suit No. 32 of 2001.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent instituted SCC Suit No. 32/2001 on 04.12.2001 before the JSCC/Court of District Judge, Dehradun against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent demanded in the said suit. On 07.09.2001 notice was issued by plaintiff/respondent to defendant/petitioner for demand of arrears of rent. Neither in the notice dated 07.09.2001 nor in the plaint respondent sought recovery of possession. The petitioner filed a written statement in the above SCC suit No. 32/01 on 06.09.2002. In the written statement petitioner stated that he is a tenant since October 1994 @ Rs. 250/- per month inclusive of all taxes. He was paying rent regularly but respondent refused to accept the same. The petitioner without...
Shri Girish Rawat S/O J.S. Rawat Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri M.C. Pant, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Purohit, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner is the workman and has challenged the validity and legality of the award of the Labour Court by which the order of termination of his services was upheld by the Labour Court. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary in the Co-operative Society of opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. 3rd February, 1996. On account of serious charges of mis-appropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society, the petitioner was chargesheeted by an order dated 18/08/1998. An inquiry was held and, thereafter, the petitioner's services was terminated by an order dated 10th September, 1998. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The terms of the reference order was...
Govind Ballabh Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 19.06.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal Through Shri Surya ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 315 of 2003, State v. Bhawan Singh and Ors., relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 23. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-M/s Britannia Industries Ltd, is company engaged in manufacturing/marketing various products such as biscuits, under the umbrella trademark 'BRITANNIA', including the sub-brand 'TIGER'. The Food Inspector, took the sample of six packets of TIGER biscuits from M/s Negi General Store, Chhada Garam Pani, Nainital, on 29.04.2002 and one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow, for analysis. The Public Analyst, in its report dated 05.06.2002, reported everything...
Pushkar Dutt Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Jeevan Singh S/O Shyam Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000, whereby the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital) vide his order dated 12.09.2000, passed in Criminal Case No. 734 of 1991, against the revisionist, in respect of offence punishable under Section 60 / 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, is affirmed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 16th and 17th of March 1991, Sub Inspector Kamal Ram Arya (P.W. 1), constable Gopal Singh (P.W. 2) along with Constables Ranveer Singh and Nandan Singh, at about 02:40 A.M., checked the vehicle make DCM Toyota, bearing registration No. USZ / 9458 coming from Haldwani, near Jeolikot barrier. It was found that in said truck in 73 white bags and 07 jute bags, country made liquor was being transported ...
Kishna Nand Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 04.08.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Hem Chandra Parihar S/O Ram Singh Parihar Vs. Smt. Pushpa Parihar W/O ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing and the order dated 21.04.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in criminal revision No. 25 of 2008, Hem Chandra Parihar v. Smt Pushpa Parihar.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 02.06.2004. However, due to the matrimonial discord, since 12.06.2004, they started living separately. It appears that the respondent Smt. Pushpa Parihar moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month, she pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself. She further pleaded that the petitioner has means to pay the maintainance and neglected to pay the same. The trial court vide its order dated 16.09.2008 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, and further direc...
Britannia Industries Ltd. Through Its Nominee Mr. A.K. Chakrabarti Vs. ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 226 of 2005 State v. Pawan Kumar and Ors. relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. (This petition was restored to its original number today on the application of the petitioners and the case is finally being disposed of after hearing the arguments).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-M/s Britannia Industries Ltd, is company engaged in manufacturing/marketing various products such as biscuits, under the umbrella trademark 'BRITANNIA', including the sub-brand 'TIGER'. The Food Inspector, took the sample of six packets of TIGER biscuits from M/s Pawan General Store, Haldwani on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »