Uttaranchal Court July 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.
Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd, and ors. Vs. the Dy. Labo ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. The services of respondent No.2 were dispensed with by issuing a three months' notice, vide an order dated 06.10.1998. He, accordingly, issued a demand notice under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter came to be placed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Despite the failure of conciliation proceedings, the Deputy Labour Commissioner declined to refer the dispute raised by respondent No.2 for adjudication before an appropriate Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. It is therefore, that respondent No.2 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 207 of 2002. During the course of the proceedings before the Writ Court, it emerged that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had arrived at the conclusion, that respondent No.2 was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the Act. It is therefore, that the reference had been declined.2. The learned Single Judge...
Ranjeet Singh S/O Shri Darshan Singh, and ors. Vs. State of U.P (Now S ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.1998 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 480 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted the appellants Ranjeet Singh, Jagir Singh, Malkeet Singh and Harbhajan Singh under section 147, 323/149, 324/149 Indian Penal Code 1860,(for short I.P.C.) and accused/appellant Gurdeep Singh under section147, 323/149 and 324 I.P.C.. Each of the convicts has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 147 I.P.C rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 323/149 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under section 324 I.P.C.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that one Surendra Kaur who was sister of the present appellants Ranjeet Singh, Jagir Singh, Malke...
Tata Sky Limited Vs. the State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. SachIn Hotels (P) Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. The present Income Tax Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (from hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a substantial question of law formulated as follows:Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi has erred in law in holding that action Under Section 148 cannot be taken on the basis of DVO's report, as the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Courts in the case of CIT v. Rajendran reported in : 288 ITR 312 (Mad) does not apply to the facts of the case?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Assessee, namely, M/s Sachin Hotels (P) Ltd. started construction of a hotel somewhere in July 1997 i.e. in the financial year 1997-98, relevant to the Assessing Year 1998-99. The hotel which was being built opposite the Railway Station at Haridwar, was completed in September, 2001. The Company filed its return for the Financial Year 2001-02 only. It had maintained books of accounts since its inception and the co...
S.S. Bedi S/O Shri Mal Singh Vs. State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhan ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.1986 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Dehradun in C.B.I case no 11 of 1983, whereby appellant S.S. Bedi and two others were convicted under Section 409, 120B, 471 and 461 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short I.P.C) and one punishable under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 409 of I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on under Section 471 read with Section 465 of I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The two other accused namely M.S. Rana and Dhrampal we...
Amit Bhatt S/O Dhani Ram Bhatt Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 7.5.2010 and that was not dismissed on merit.2. Heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the present applicant is not named in the First Information Report and the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. He further argued that even in the statement recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victim Astha has not made any allegation against the present applicant. He further submitted that the co-accused Pradeep Chandra Gaur, Vinod Singh, Hemant Singh and Ashutosh Kharakwal have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 7.7.20 10, 9.7.20 10, 14.7.20 10 and 16.7.2010, respectively and the present applicant is also entitl...
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) Vs. Nishikant
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand challenging the judgment dated 30.08.1996 vide which accused respondent Nishikant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B, 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').2. Facts, in brief, are that marriage between Nishikant and Pushp Lata (since deceased) was performed on 14/15.04.1988 in a hotel at Amritsar. According to PW2 Lokman Das Agarwal, father of Pushp Lata, Nishikant as well as his mother Prakashwati started harassing his daughter and making demand of dowry immediately after the marriage. According to the complainant, he had been fulfilling their demands as per his capacity. Even one year prior to the present occurrence, Prakashwati had tried to set Pushp Lata on fire but somehow she escaped. Pushp Lata was not even provided with proper meals and other basic necessities. On 29.03.1991, she was given beatings by the accused and thereafter, she was set on fire by ...
Anandi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. Both the above appeals, arise out against the same judgment and order dated 26-8-2006, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in S.T. No. 293/2002, State v. Deepak and three Ors. therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held guilty all the accused/appellants Deepak, Bablu, Anandi and Rajendra @ Raju Under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 354/34 I.P.C. All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment Under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. They were further sentenced to undergo two years R.I. Under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and two years R.I. Under Section 354/34 I.P.C. However, the sentences were to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the prosecution are that complainant Sandeep Kaur lodged written report, Ext. Ka.1, at P.S. Jaspu...
Samim Ahemad and anr. Vs. Smt. Bilkish
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh Advocate for the petitioners.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed in complain case No. 1179/2008, Smt. Bilkish v. Shamim Ahemad and Ors. under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and also to quash the entire proceedings of said case.3. Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of daughter of the complainant/respondent was fixed with the petitioner No. 1 Shamim Ahemad but it could not happen because of excessive demand of dowry made by the petitioners. Thereafter a case was lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in PS Pathri which was registered as Case Crime No. 80/2008. Thereafter on 22.7.2008 at about 5 pm, petitioners along with two other unknown co-accused came in the house of...
Rikesh Kumar and ors. and Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vs. State of Uttarakhand an ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Dharam Veer, J.1. In both the above petitions, common summoning order is assailed and the dispute is also the same, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Both the criminal applications, preferred Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed for quashing the order- dated 27.06.2006 passed by the J.M., Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 1151/2006 (in C482 petition No. 243/09) and in Criminal Case No. 193/09 (in C482 petition No. 193/09).3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.4. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Rajpal lodged an FIR with the averments that his daughter Sunita Sharma was married with petitioner-Rikesh Kumar Gaur on 1.5.2004 as per Hindu RITES and he spent money according to his status. An amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was demanded by the petitioners from the complainant before marriage, which was deposited in the form ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »