Uttaranchal Court November 2011 Judgments

Smt. Saraswati Devi Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ211(NOC)

U.C. Dhyani, J. Oral: 1. Smt. Saraswati Devi has filed the criminal revision no. 62 of 2004 against the respondents State of Uttarakhand and 7 others. Smt. Saraswati Devi was the reporter, injured and prosecution witness in the trial before the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. 2. The Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in his judgment dated 17thApril, 2004 acquitted the accused persons, viz., Prem Singh, Dinesh Singh, Nandan Singh, Smt. Rajni Singh, Smt. Saraswati, Smt. Devki and Dhiraj Singh of the charges under sections 147, 307 read with sections 149, 336, 427, 504 and 506 IPC framed against them. Their bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties were discharged. It is against this judgment and order that the witnesses / injured has preferred this revision. State has not challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.04.2004. 3. This criminal revision is preferred on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence tendered on behalf ...

U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012(2)LLN588

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Haldwani, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioners, the respondent no.2 Kedar Dutt Sati is an ex-licensee employee and he was appointed in 1952 by Nagar Palika Haldwani in its electricity department, which was taken over by the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 1976. On the appointed date, the services of the workers of the electricity department including that of Sri Kedar Dutt Sati were transferred to the Board’s services on their original terms and conditions. At that time, Sri Kedar Dutt Sati was working as a Bill and Demand Clerk in Nagar Palika. The petitioners gave the workman a fresh appointment letter on the post of Routine Grade Clerk and it was clearly indicated in the appointment letter that all other allowances and Board’s terms and conditions will be appl...

District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and Others Vs. Amit Dixit and O ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Barin Ghosh, C. J. 1. By the judgment and order under appeal, writ petition of respondent No. 1 has been allowed by quashing the order dated 1stFebruary, 2011, by which, appellant No. 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, rejected the application of respondent No. 1 seeking a residence certificate; and directing the said appellant to issue a domicile certificate to respondent No. 1 forthwith. 2. Respondent No. 1 responded to an advertisement for admission to MBBS Course commencing from the academic year 2008-2009. The advertisement held out that some of the advertised seats are available exclusively for those, who are residents / domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand. Respondent No. 1, while responding to the said advertisement, held out that he is a domicile / resident of the State of Uttarakhand. Response to the said advertisement gave an admission to respondent No. 1 in a seat, which was meant for a resident / person domiciled of the State of Uttarakhand. At the ...

Paramount Health Services Tpa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indrapal Singh and Others

Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 135 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 67,652 to the complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. pendente lite and future; Rs. 2,000 towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs. 3,000 as costs. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant has taken the BOB Card scheme of the appellant - Paramount Health Services (TPA) Pvt. Ltd. from the opposite party No. 3 - Bank of Baroda bearing account No. SB-20012670 and PHS I.D. No. NA RAM 8462653 IND P. The scheme was valid for the period from 28.2.2007 to 27.2.2008. Under th...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Gupta S/O Late Sh ...

Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2005. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Gupta purchased a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy for himself; his wife and two children from National Insurance Company Limited. The said policy was valid for the period from 10.03.2004 to 09.03.2005. Under the said policy, the complainant was insured for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 05.04.2004, the complainant felt some medical problem and he contacted Dr. Gilhotra, Heart Specialist, who referred...

Harnam Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand)

Court: Uttaranchal

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.11.1999, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1994, whereby said court has convicted the appellants under section 304 part II of I.P.C., and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Pokhar Singh (S/o Harnam Singh) got married to Meeta Kaur [sister of Gurdeep Singh (deceased)]. After sometime the relations between parties to matrimony got soured. Meeta Kaur started living in her parental house. Distance between the two houses is said to be one kilometer (as mentioned in the statement of P.W. 1 Sona Singh). On 26.11.1993, at about 5:00 p.m., as disclosed in the First Information Report (Ex. A1) lodged by the complainant P.W.1 Sona Singh (uncle of Meeta Kaur), he alongwith his nephew Gurdeep Singh (deceased...

Anuj Joshi and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

Barin Ghosh, C.J. Oral: 1. In this writ petition, we are concerned with a hydro electric power project on river Alaknanda situated at Srinagar. The proposal to undertake the project was mooted by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board. Initially when they approached the Central Electricity Authority under Section 29 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, they held out that the capacity of the project will be 200 Megawatts. At the same time, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, was also approached by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board for obtaining environmental clearance in respect of the said project. The Ministry of Environment and Forest accorded such clearance on 3rd May, 1985. When the Detailed Project Report was prepared by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board for obtaining statutory sanction of the Central Electricity Authority, in terms of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, it was represented in the Detailed Project Report that the capacity o...

Pappu Alias Pupendra Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ237(NOC)

U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Hardwar, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1997, whereby said court has convicted accused / appellant Pappu alias Pupendra under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/-, in default of payment of which he has been further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.01.1997, Raghuvir, an employee of District Hospital, Haridwar came to police station Kotwali Haridwar and informed that on 28.01.1997, at 01:50 A.M., one person named Mitrasen, aged 80 ...

Shri Mangal Ram Vs. Smt. Samar Jahan

Court: Uttaranchal

1. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 9135/10) has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of 2088 days’ delay in filing the Second Appeal. Earlier on 26.05.2011, this application was allowed on the basis of statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent has no objection, incase the delay condonation application is allowed, provided the applicant/appellant undertakes to vacate the premises in question within the stipulated period prescribed by this Court. At that time, learned counsel for the appellant agreed for the same and prayed that appellant may be permitted to retain the accommodation in question for a further period of six months. On the basis of statement given by learned counsel for the parties, the delay condonation application was allowed without being heard on merit. Thereafter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant sought permission to withdraw the Second Appeal with the prayer that appellant may b...