Uttaranchal Court December 2011 Judgments

Smt. Rahasan Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ289(NOC)

U.C. Dhyani, J 1. In the instant case, the criminal law was set into motion by one Bashir Khan s/o Nizam Ali r/o Ward No.10, Kichha who had lodged a complaint with the Inspector In-charge Kotwali, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar on 30.06.2000 stating that his daughter Smt. Bhuri was married to Ahmad Hasan s/o Shaukat r/o Ward No.17 Kichha some 09 months ago. Her husband Ahmad Hasan and her mother-in-law Rahasan w/o Shaukat demanded dowry and also used to commit marpeet with her. Smt. Bhuri used to complain about the same but the father persuaded his daughter to reconcile. On 30.06.2000 at around 4:00 p.m. her mother-in-law blamed her for having illicit relations with another man. The mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. On her hue and cry the neighbours tried to come to her rescue and brought her to the Government Hospital Kichha. She was referred to Bareilly (higher centre). But she breathed her last on way to Bareilly. Her dead body was lying at Government Hospi...

Cyborg It Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Court: Uttaranchal

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: 1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner claims to be “First Information Technology” (Software Development) Company in the State of Uttarakhand. It also claims to have developed software known as “Nipun” which has to be used for administrative and ministerial purposes in schools and in such other educational institutions. Apart from the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner’s company also claims to be working in Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and in Bihar. This petition has been filed in the name of CYBORG IT Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Chief Executive Officer, namely, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Haneria. The company has its office at Dehradun. The petitioner also claims to have launched the said software (Nipun) and he further states that this software had a great demand from the Principals of Government and Government aided schools. In the year...

Kamal Jora and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Court: Uttaranchal

1. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. By means of the first Writ Petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1533 of 2011, the Chairman of the erstwhile “Nagar Palika Parisahd”, Haridwar has challenged the order of the dissolution of the “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haridwar, and in the second writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1548 of 2011, the councilors of the erstwhile “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haldwani have challenged the dissolution of the “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haldwani. 3. The two Nagar Palikas were formally constituted on 6.5.2008 and 5.5.2008 respectively. The term of the two “Nagar Palika Parishad” is for a period of five years. In othe...

Anand Prakash Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ279(NOC)

Tarun Agarwala, J. A complaint u/S 406, 418, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was filed by the complainant at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the applicant alleging that the applicant is a builder and had come to Kashipur to engage the complainant in constructing a septic tank, sewer lines etc. in a colony which was being developed by the applicant in Meerut. It is alleged that on the basis of an oral agreement, the complainant undertook the work. It was agreed that payment would be made from time to time on the basis of the work done by the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant invested his money in laying down the pipe lines, constructing the septic tank, etc, and as on 31st March, 2003, a sum of Rs. 7,22,396/- became due and payable by the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant did not pay the bills nor had any intention to pay the bills and, accordingly, the applicant had an intention to deceive and defraud the complainant. It was alleged that a...

Chandra Pal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ296(NOC)

B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Since similar controversy is involved in the above two revisions, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Revision No. 130 of 2004, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-6-2004, passed by I F.T.C./Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004, Chandra Pal vs. State of Uttaranchal and another whereby the appeal was dismissed and judgment and order dated 22-1-2004, passed by II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed in complaint case No. 58/2003 Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. Chandra Pal was upheld. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate has convicted the accused/revisionist U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments act and he was directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment he shall suffer imprisonment for one year. Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2004, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-5-2004, passed by I F.T.C./Additional Distri...

Sarvshri Satysheel and Company Kailash Gait, Muni Ki Reti, Tehri Garhw ...

Court: Uttaranchal

1. Heard Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jayavardhan Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. K. C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.12.1996 whereby the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 78 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), as presently applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, has cancelled the mining lease of the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that vide orders dated 27.6.1994, 2.6.1994 and 29.6.1994 the petitioners were granted mining lease for extracting/picking minor minerals. These lease deeds were executed consequent to an order passed by appropriate authorities. One of the orders which have been referred to (though not annexed by the petitioners) is the order dated 8.6.1994. Subsequent to the lease deeds executed, the District Magistrate moved a report before the State Gover...

Alok Mehrotra Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the order dated 24-7-2009 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/District Judge Dehranun (for short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2009, Alok Mehrotra Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, whereby the application moved by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed and the parties are directed to refer their disputes to the sole arbitrator. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff-revisionist instituted S.C.C.Suit No. 14 of 2009 against the defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2, wherein defendant nos. 3 to 9 (respondents no. 3 to 9 herein) have been arrayed as proforma defendants. The plaintiff-revisionist has sought the following relief in the said suit:- “(i) That a decree for an amount of Rs. ...