Uttaranchal Court December 2012 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager Reg ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-26-2012
B.S. Verma, J. Oral: By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/award dated 7-7-1999, published on 17-7-1999, passed by the respondent No.2 (Labour Court) in Industrial Claim Case No. 243 of 1998, Regional Manager U.P. S.R.T.C. Dehradun Vs. Rajendra Kumar, U/S 4(K) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.3, Rajendra Kumar was engaged as a conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, region Dehradun. On 12-5-1994, he was on duty with Bus No. 9626 on route Mussorrie Dehradun. The checking staff headed by Checking Inspector of the Corporation checked the aforesaid Bus and four 12 persons travelling in the bus without ticket. Thereafter a charge sheet dated 22-9-1994 was issued against the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 22.10.1994. The enquiry was transferred to Assistant...
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Irfan and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-24-2012
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) 1. Respondents have been served. Learned Advocates, Mr. Navneet Kaushik and Mr. Mohd. Umar, have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. Their names are appearing in the list, but they are not appearing. 2. There has been 84 days delay in preferring the appeal and, accordingly, an Application for condonation of delay has been filed. No one is seeking to object the said Application. We have perused the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and have found that the reason for the delay was delay in granting permission to prefer appeal. What could be done when the same was done, could also be done within the time by which the same was required to be done. Therefore, though there is no good reason for the delay; but, having regard to the fact that the Government is required to depend on discharge of duties by Government servants and, it is because of the laches on the part of the Government servants that there has been delay in preferri...
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Shiv Singh
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. One Shiv Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Patwari Thati Badma on 13.02.2005, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 12.02.2005, at 5:00 p.m., informants daughter Geeta Devi came with her husband Anand Singh to her matrimonial home. Everybody took meals together. Anand Singh and Geeta Devi slept in another house of the informant. When they did not wake up till 8:00 p.m. on the next day, informant pushed the door and called them. On failing to get any response from inside, informant called the villagers, who broke opened the window and found that the couple was dead. As has been mentioned above, the couple was the daughter and son-in-law of informant Shiv Singh. 2. On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 01/2005, under Section 302 IPC in Patti Syur Bangar, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of informant and other witnesses, conducted inquest, sent the dead bodies for postmortem, in...
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Deepu Das and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Present Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2003, whereby accused-respondent Deepu Das was acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and accused-respondent Sona Das was acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. 2. A missing report (Ext. Ka-1) was written by Matwar Lal to Patti Patwari Siton Suin, District Pauri Garhwal on 16.08.2003. In the missing report, it was written by the informant that his daughter Seeta, aged 17 years, went to purchase household goods in local market along with Veena Devi and Deepu Das on 31.07. 2003, at 11:00 a.m. While Veena Devi returned to her house but Seeta and Deepu Das did not return. Informant Matwar Lal expressed apprehension that Deepu Das eloped Seeta. 3. On the basis of said first information report, which was r...
M/S. New Asian Construction Company Vs. Ujvn Limited and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
B.S. Verma, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal was heard to be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-9-2011 passed by the District Judge Dehradun in Arbitration Case No. 53 of 2011, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), whereby the petition under Section 9 of the Act moved by the appellant-contractor was partly allowed with reference to the forfeiture of the amount due under the bills raised against the work done by the appellant and lying with the respondents and the respondents were directed not to forfeit any such amount during the continuance of the contract and during the arbitral proceedings till award is passed by the said Tribunal. For rest of the reliefs with reference to invocation of bank guarantee and repudiation of the contract, the petition was rejected. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that tenders were invit...
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Devendra and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral: Barin Ghosh, C.J. 1. In the instant case, the lady died of hanging. She was married to respondent Devendra Singh. The marriage took place 10 years before the date of the death. The brother of the deceased Dalbeer Singh (PW1) filed the First Information Report. In that, it was alleged that cruelty, as mentioned in Section 498A of IPC, was meted out to the victim before her death. It was also alleged that such cruelty was meted out by the husband of the victim. It was alleged that because of non-fulfillment of the demands made by respondent Devendra Singh, she was done away with by Devendra Singh. Investigation, pursuant to the First Information Report, resulted in filing of a charge sheet against the respondents, namely, the husband Devendra, father-in-law Vijendra Singh and brother-in-law Dilbagh Singh for offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was also alleged that the respondents are guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 ...
Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. One Kastoora Devi wrote a complaint to Patti Patwari, Kankhul, District Chamoli, on 05.11.2005, regarding the killing of her husband Awal Singh. 2. According to the informant Kastoora Devi, her husband left the house on 01.11.2005 in the morning. Awal Singh said that he was going to village Ganoli. Awal Singh did not return by the evening. The next day i.e. on 02.11.2005, at 5:00 a.m., her fellow villager Bhajan Singh came to her house and enquired about her husband. Bhajan Singh then left for Silangi market. Subsequently, at 11:00 a.m., some family members of the informant disclosed her that her husbands dead body was lying in a pathway. Such pathway was situated in village Ganoli. It was learnt that Bhajan Singh and Awal Singh were coming back from village Ganoli. Although Bhajan Singh reached his village, but Awal Singh did not. Bhajan Singh did not participate in the cremation of Awal Singh. Some people saw Bhajan Singh dragging the body of Awal Singh when they w...
Mukesh Vs. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand)
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
(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 09.02.2001, passed by Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1996, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Mukesh under section 307 of I.P.C, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay fine of ` 1000/-. (2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and learned A.G.A, for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.07.1995, at about 7.00 am PW2 Govind Mohan was going to open his tea stall kiosk in Mohalla Ratan Ka Purva within the limits of Kotwali Roorkee, when accused Mukesh came there, and gave a knife blow on his chest. PW1 Ranno Devi, who was also present at the place of incident immediately took her injured son to hospital for medical aid. Thereafter PW1 Ranno Devi went to Police...
Munendra Singh @ Munna Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal, received through Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun, is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.07.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2008, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Munendra Singh @ Munna under section 392 read with section 397 IPC and under section 304 (part II) IPC. The convict has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/under section 392 read with section 397 IPC. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/under section 304 (Part II) IPC. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned counsel for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Hari Kishan Singh (deceased) left his house in the morning with cash of Rs. 7,000/in his purse for Nakot market. He had to make...
The State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal (Sidcul) a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
B.S. Verma, J. Oral Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this common order. All these writ petitions have been filed by The State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal (SIDCUL), which has been appointed as a nodal agency by the Government of Uttarakhand under Section 48 of The U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 against the impugned awards dated 19.9.2003, 13.2.2004, 31.7.2003, 17.1.1998, 17.10.2003, 17.10.2003, 17.10.2003, 19.9.2003, 19.9.2003, 21.7.2003, 31.12.2003, 9.6.2003, 29.3.2003, 17.10.2003, 9.6.2003, 13.2.2004, 19.4.2003, 4.9.2003, 24.12.2003, 17.11.2003, 27.8.2003, 24.12.2003, 13.2.2004 and 29.6.1998 passed by the Labour Court and the orders by which the review/recall applications of the petitioner have been dismissed. Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, the Government of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) under section 48 of the U....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »