Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Shri Atma Ram and Another Vs. Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. It transpires that the plaintiff instituted a suit on 23rd December, 1999 and on the very same day pressed his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. for the grant of a temporary injunction. The trial court did not find it fit to grant an exparte injunction and, accordingly, issued notice to the defendant fixing 15th March, 2000 for written statement and on 22nd March, 2000 for framing of issues. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the issuance of notice, filed a revision on 24th December, 1999, wherein the revisional court granted an exparte injunction and further issued notice to the defendant for appearance on 17th January, 2000. By the said order, the revisional court also summoned the lower court record. The defendant was served with the notice issued by the trial court as well as by the revisional court and, accordingly, appeared before the revisional court on 17th January, 2000 and contested the revision. The revision was eventually decided on 22.11.2002 direct...
Km. Sushma Pandey and Others. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. According to the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the requisite qualification of a Mistress of a Nursery School is Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a recognized Training Institution situate in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. 2. According to the petitioners, who have obtained training from Manav Bharti Teachers Training Institute, Dehradun, they have obtained Nursery Teachers Training Certificate. It has been contented that Manav Bharti Teachers Training Institute, Dehradun has been recognized by the National Council for Teacher’s Education. 3. While, Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) is appropriate academic qualification for appointment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools, Certificate of Teaching, appears to be the appropriate qualification for being appointed as Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools, in addition to Bachelors Degree in terms...
Anil Kumar Arya Vs. State and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner have sought following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying and Harness Rules for appointment on Class-III post. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2009. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.” Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that father of petitioner died on 08.09.2008. After death of his father, petitioner applied for appointment under Dying and Harness Rules, 1974, for Class III post on 25.09.2008. The application, moved by the petitioner is wi...
Kishori Lal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the husband, primarily, aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag on an application moved by wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant before this Court is husband of respondent no. 2 and father of respondent no. 3. Smt. Rukma Devi, wife of the present applicant moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in a detail order dated 11.8.2005 after hearing both the parties fixed the maintenance for wife / respondent no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- (One Thousand Five Hundred) per month and for the daughter at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred) per month and the arrears were to be paid by the applicant from the date of filing of the application. This order was challenged by the applicant in a Revision being Criminal Revision No....
irshad HussaIn Vs. State and Other.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Case Crime No. 19 of 1999, who has refused to accept the final report given by the Police in Case Crime No. 19 of 1999 under Section 39/40 of the Indian Electricity Act and has rejected the report and issued nonbailable warrants against the accused i.e. the present revisionist. While doing so the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has examined all the material witnesses and evidence against the accused persons, such as the fact that the seal in the meter in the premises of the accused has been found to be tempered plus the procedure, which is adopted by the Electricity Department while checking of such meters in order to assess the cost of pilferage, has been examined by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magist...
Sri J.S. Kushwaha and Others. Vs. State of Uttarakand and Another.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr.Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 333 of 2004 Uttam Singh v. J.S. Kushwaha and others pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is a practicing advocate in district Pauri Garhwal filed a complaint against the present revisionist, inter alia, under Sections 430, 420, 120B, 471, 403, 406, 409, 191, 192 and 193 I.P.C read with Section 18 of Kumaon Garhwal Water (Collection Retention and Distribution) Act, 1975, stating that the officials, such as General Manager, Chief General Manager, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan, District Pauri Garhwal have stated on oath before the Ap...
Dewan Chandra Giri and Others Vs. Iind Addl. District Judge and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Shri Bharat Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.C. Pande, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The counter claim of the defendant was decreed, against which, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal which was admitted. 3. The certified copy of the decree was not filed alongwith the appeal. Subsequently, a certified copy of the decree was filed alongwith an application praying that the same may be taken on record. The said application was allowed by an order dated 24 th February, 1998 on payment of cost. The defendant, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 was initially required to be accompanied by a certified copy of the decree without which the appeal was not maintainable and that the subsequent filing of the decree after the period of limitation could not cure the initial defect. 5. For proper appreciation, Order 4...
Smt Champa Devi Wo. Manohar Singh, Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Learned State counsel files supplementary counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the benefits to the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of the Government Order dated 28-6-2006, 15-12-2006 and 21-8-2007. Further prayer for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the honorarium to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in view of the G.O. dated 28-6-2006 and 21-8-2007 has been made from the date of their respective EGS Centres were upgraded to Upper Primary Schools. 4. According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee Scheme Centre Sibyoli and EGS Centre Larabora respectively. The petitioners have annexed appointment letters as Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioners claim to have undergone traini...
Santosh Kumar Rai and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications and perused the record available. 2. This criminal petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.220 of 2008, State v. Santosh Kumar & others, U/s 498-A/323/504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before Ist ACJM, Haridwar. 3. A compounding application No.1011/2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and complainant/respondent no.2 along with which the respective affidavits of the parties have also been filed. In those affidavits, common averments have been made to the effect that the petitioner no.1-Santosh Kumar Rai and respondent no.2-Smt. Ruchi, who were the parties to the matrimony, have decided to settle their matrimonial disputes and, therefore, they entered into a compromise and now they...
Dr. Himanshu S. Jha Vs. the Chancellor, Kumaun University and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. We have permitted the learned counsel for Dr. Smt. Ila Sah to file a further affidavit in Court today. 2. The State Government is not a party to the present writ petition. The reliefs claimed in the writ petition are not directed against the State Government. However, while considering the matter, we felt that the State Government has not discharged some of its obligations pertaining to the matter in question and accordingly, it would be appropriate, on our part, to direct the State Government to discharge its such part of the obligations and accordingly, we make the State Government, through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, respondent no.6. The learned counsel for the State Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present before us and in his presence, the present order is being passed. 3. The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 is applicable in its full force to the State of Uttarakhand. In terms of Section 31 of the Act, pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »