Uttaranchal Court April 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.
Jagdish Singh Tanwal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. In the instant case, two complaints were filed. In the first complaint, injured Pramod Kumar’s name was missing. It was lodged at the behest of Bahadur Ram Tamta, who happened to be uncle of deceased Dayal Kumar s/o Anand Prasad r/o village Kaligad, District Bageshwar. The occurrence took place on 20.03.2008 at Kafligair and FIR was lodged on the same day at 7:10 p.m. The distance between place of occurrence and P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar was 35 Kms and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR (Ext.Ka-7). 2. It was written in the first complaint that Dayal Kumar s/o Anand Prasad died because of beating by police. Dayal Kumar had been to Kafligair on 20.03.2008. Drunken policemen beat Dayal Kumar so much that the same resulted into his death. Police administration of P.S. Jhiroli was responsible for the same. Dayal Kumar was a member of Scheduled Caste Community. Dayal Kumar’s father was an ex-serviceman who fought Bangladesh war and was 80 percent d...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
B.C. Kandpal, President: Oral: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 372 of 2007, thereby allowing the consumer complaint against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant and further directing the opposite party No. 4 appellant to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. The consumer complaint was dismissed against the opposite party No. 3. The learned President of the District Forum vide his dissenting order dated 28.08.2009 has, however, dismissed the consumer complaint. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the compl...
Brijesh Negi Proprietor, Health Care Appliances and Another Vs. Paripu ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 172 of 2009 and directing the opposite parties appellants to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,500/- within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum has also clarified in its order that the complainant would return the gas stove and the chimneys to the opposite parties after the said amount is deposited with the District Forum by the opposite parties and the said amount would be disbursed in favour of the complainant thereafter. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Paripurnanand Raturi had purchased two chimneys and one gas stove with built-in hob from Sh. Brijesh Negi, Propretior, Health Care Appliances, Dehradun opposite party No. 1. These appliances were manufactured by Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad opposite party No. 2. After the installation of these applian...
Nanhe Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal Through Ssp Nainital
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.108 of 2003, State Vs. Pawan Kumar @ Pappu and others, whereby the accused Pawan Kumar @ Pappu, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Nanhe Singh have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. Each of them was further convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sanjay Jaiswal @ Sanju was in Jail having been convicted in a crime under the NDPS Act. He remained in Jail from February 2002 till 28.5.2003. As soon as he was released from jail on 28.5.2003, he reached his house at Haldwani where he found his wife missing. Thereafter, he proceeded to Pilibhit wher...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›