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.
Suresh Chandra Auli. Vs. Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam and Another.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21-12-2005 passed by respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules. 3. Any other writ, order, direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. 4. Allow the writ petition with cost. 3. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on the post of daily scalar (Passing Munshi) on 10-12-1982 in the U.P. Forest Corporation, Cheed Depot, Tanakpur, District Champawat, who continuously served the department until his death on 4-3-1996. 4. The petitioner claims that ...
Kailash So. Anant Ram Caste Kahar, Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kashipur in Crl. Appeal No.8/2000, Kailash v. State, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 22.4.2000 passed by the J.M. Kashipur (US Nagar) in Criminal Case No.1328/99 (Case Crime No.190/90), State. v. Kailash, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 {hereinafter to be referred as the Act} for six months’ S.I. with fine of Rs.250/- and in case of default one months’ further imprisonment was awarded. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 3.9.1990, S.O. RS Aswal along with SI Shyam Singh and SI Jagan Singh and H.C. Radhey Lal, Constable Vijay Kumar and driver Consta...
Rati Ram So. Late Fakira, R.O. Gandhi Gram New Bast Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This appeal, preferred u/s 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.], is directed against the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No.4 of 1999, State v. Rati Ram u/s 446 Cr.P.C. thereby directing the appellant to deposit the amount of surety within one month. 2. The appellant stood as one of the sureties for an amount of Rs.25,000/- of the accused Mahendra @ Pappu who was facing trial u/s 397/395 IPC. Thereafter, when the accused became absent, on 23.7.1999 and 13.8.1999 notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was issued against the appellant which was also served upon him, but even when the appellant did not appear, thereafter on 2.9.99, 20.9.99, 7.10.99 and 28.10.99, recovery warrants were directed to be issued by the court below against him. On 20.11.99, the appellant Rati Ram appeared before the court and moved an application paper No.11B seeking therein two months’ time to deposit the sur...
Mahesh Singh Son of Dalip 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 and 15-12-2006. 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, 15-12-2006 and 14-2-2008 has been made from the date of EGS Centre was upgraded to Primary School Rautli Izra (Shal). 4. According to the petitioner, he was selected as Shiksha Acharya vide resolution dated 19-7-2004 of the Village Education Committee and the petitioner obtained training of Shiksha Acharya. 5.The petitioner joined on the post of Shiksha Acharya in EGS Centre Rautli Izra on 15-10-2004. ...
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Dehradun Vs. Ms Alka Restaurant, Mall Ro ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This revision application is delayed by 310 days. Accordingly, an application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the revision application. This Court, while considering the matter on 11 th June 2010, did not direct issuance of notice at least in the application for condonation of delay upon the respondent, instead directed production of translated version of the impugned order. Today the translated version of the impugned order has been produced. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, and after having had perused the same, we are of the view that the present revision application, being utterly meritless, we need not condone the delay in preferring the revision application, and accordingly, need not serve any notice upon the respondent. 2. The amount of tax involved in the revision is ` 10,250. The fact remains that the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by passing an order under Rule 41 (8) of U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred t...
Jai Ram Reddy Son of Kundal Reddy Vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Utta ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) is directed against judgment and order dated 27.02.1999/03.03.1999 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.299 of 1995, whereby the said court has convicted accused/appellant Jai Ram Reddy of the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and further directed him to pay 2 a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, convict was directed to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution case is that Vishna Devi (deceased) had earlier got married to one Khem Babu whereafter she left her and started living with her brother-in-law Shiv Charan. She had a quarrel with him also, and finally she started living with accused appellant Jai Ram Reddy. Vishna Devi had a d...
Amandeep Singh Chadda and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to the petitioner, a notification No. 769/3-7/(2) Road Transport/2000-2001, under Section 102 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was issued by the State, whereby the objections were invited as required under Section 102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as published in the official gazette on 01.08.2001. On 24.11.2001, the objections of the Transport Corporation were decided by the hearing authority. Thereafter Corporation preferred writ petition before this Court, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court, affirming the order passed by the hearing authority. 3. Admit the petition. 4. Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand shall file supplementary affidavit within a period of three weeks’ from today showing how Section 100 (4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is applicable while the scheme has been modified under Section ...
Smt. Padma Bisht Wo. Jeewan Singh Bisht. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ...
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 as also G.O. dated 14.2.2008 has been made from the date the Education Guarantee Centre Airi Gourauli, Post Officer Birgul (Champawat) is upgraded to Primary School. 4. According to the petitioner, she is post graduate and is fully eligible for absorption/adjustment as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School as per Government Orders referred to above. The petitioner was appointed as Shi...
Kalipad S/O Devendra Nath, Vs. the State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.308/1997, State v. Kalipad, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused u/s 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {hereinafter to be referred as the IPC} for three years’ with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default, six months’ additional imprisonment was awarded. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 366/376 IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 12.11.1996 PW1 Banmali Das lodged an FIR at PS Rudrapur with the averments that on 6.11.1996 at about 4 PM, the appellant/accused had taken away his daughter Saraswati, aged about 13 years, by enticing her and since then he along with ...
State of Uttarakhand and Others. Vs. Pushkar Singh Negi (Head Constabl ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. By an order dated 12 th July, 1999 a disciplinary proceeding, initiated against respondent No. 1, was concluded by awarding him punishment of reversion at the minimum of the pay-scale, in which he was, for a period of three years. Respondent No. 1, unsuccessfully, preferred an appeal and, thereupon, failed in his revision application. 2. In short the charge, for which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, was that because of dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No. 1, two dreaded criminals escaped from the prison, which was being guarded by respondent No. 1. It has come on record that the prison had two gates on the entrance, one had double locks and the other a single lock. Two constables were guarding the said two gates during the relevant time and date. At the request of this Court made earlier, the learned counsel for the State has produced before us necessary documents suggesting that those two constables have also been dealt with in similar fashion. 3. It appears...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »