Uttaranchal Court March 2012 Judgments

M/S. Sahara Industries Patrampur Road Jaspur, and Another Vs. State Ba ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012AIR(Uchal)60

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 9-11-2011 (Annexure No.1) issued by the respondent Bank u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. II. To issue any other writ, order or direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. Both the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since pleadings have been exchanged, the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners, are that petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of processing of seeds and Mr. Vijay Singh son of Mr. Babu Singh is its partner. In the year 2010, petitioner no.1 firm took...

Radha Krishna Agarwal Vs. Krishna Lal

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012AIR(Uchal)64

1) This appeal preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005, passed by Additional District Judge/1stFast Track Court, Roorkee, in Original Suit No. 126 of 1994, whereby said court has decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit, before the trial court with the pleading that the properties A and B in suit were exclusively owned by the defendant/appellant on the basis of partition dated 22.06.1966. In respect of the property A, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to sell him the same for an amount of Rs.40,000/- in October, 1988, after accepting Rs.10,000/- as part of consideration. The agreement dated 05.10.1988, was executed between the parties to this effect, after making further payment of Rs.20,000/- by the plaintiff/respondent to the defendant/appell...

Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Others Vs. International Ishavasyam Mission and ...

Court: Uttaranchal

1. Instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rishikesh in Original Suit No. 10 of 2010 ‘Smt. Surjeet Kaur vs. International Ishavasyam Mission’ whereby interim injunction application no. 6c-2, moved by the plaintiff/appellants, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated that the plaintiff/appellants instituted the said suit against the defendants/respondents before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rishikesh seeking cancellation of two sale deeds dated 06.05.2009 and 19.06.2009 on the grounds that the defendants obtained these sale deeds from late Gurdev Singh Sanga, predecessor of the plaintiff/ appellants under misrepresentation, collusion and by playing fraud, without the consent of late Gurdev Singh Sanga and without paying sale consideration to late Gurdev Singh Sanga. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff/appellants moved an interim injunction application paper no. 6c-2. At the time of filing said su...

Sony Ericsson Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manu Aggarwal

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 29.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 129 of 2011, thereby allowing the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 (appellant and respondent No. 2 before this Commission) jointly and severally and directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 16.08.2010, i.e., the date of purchase of mobile handset till payment; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was observed by the District Forum that in case the amount is recovered by the complainant from the opposite party No. 3, the opposite party No. 3 will be at liberty to recover the said amount from the opposite party No. 1. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 16.08.2010, the complainant had purchased a...