Uttaranchal Court July 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.
Chandan Singh Bisht and Others Vs. Smt. Saharbano
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard Shri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Defendants/appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital in Suit No.33 of 2011-Smt Shaharbano vs. Chandan Singh Bisht and another whereby the plaintiffs suit was decreed and the sale deed dated 04.10.2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants was declared void and ineffective. 3. Plaintiff/respondent instituted suit no.33 of 2011 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 04.10.2010 be declared void and ineffective. This suit was registered on 11.05.2011. On the same day, notices were issued to the defendants/appellants fixing 13.06.2011 for filing the written statement and 20.06.2011 was fixed for the framing of the issues. One Bharat Singh Rawat, process server submitted an undated report stating ...
Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
B.S. Verma, J. Oral: 1. Heard. 2. Since the controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioner in each case has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-12-2011 passed by the District Supply Officer Udham Singh Nagar-respondent no.4 (Annexure-11 to the petition) whereby after approval of the District Magistrate, the agreement of fair price shop of the petitioners has been cancelled with immediate effect. The Petitioners have also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-1-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital, whereby the appeals preferred separately by each of the petitioners have been dismissed. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions, according to the petitioners, are that the petitioners are licence holders of fair price shops of different...
Anirudh Sharma and Others Vs. H.N.B. Garhwal University Srinagar and O ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of 5th Semester of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and of 7th Semester of petitioner No.3 and to permit them to appear in examinations of 6th Semester and 8th Semester respectively. According to the petitioners they are the students of B.A.LL.B. in law College of respondent No.3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in 5th semester of B.A. LL.B. in the College of respondent No.3 and submitted the examination forms for 6th Semester. Likewise the petitioner No.3 appeared in seven semesters of B.A. LL.B. in the college of respondent No.3 and submitted the examination form for 8th Semester. The respondent No.3 forwarded the examination forms of the petitioners to respondent No.1 and 2 and admit cards have been sent by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to respondent No.3. The examinations of 6th and 8th Semesters are going on. The da...
Govind Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of informant Bhagat Singh Aswal, brother of the deceased. In his complaint (Ext. Ka-5) submitted to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar on 26.08.1995, the informant stated that he was working as Rifleman in the Indian Army and was a resident of village Jamal (Dabralsuin). It was also stated that his sister was married to Yogambar Singh s/o Govind Singh, resident of village Teel (Bhawansi), Post Bhawansi, Patti Ajmer (Valla) in the month of April 1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that one year after her marriage, the sister of the informant was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately his sister was told to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and brother. The informant in his complaint stated that being a soldier he could not afford to fulfill such a huge demand and as a result, his sister was done away with on 14.07...
Amarmani Tripathi and Others Vs. State (Through Cbi) and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Barin Ghosh, C.J. By the judgment dated 24th October, 2007, challenged in these Appeals and in the Revision, Amarmani Tripathi (hereinafter referred to as A1), Madhumani Tripathi (hereinafter referred to as A2), Rohit Chaturvedi (hereinafter referred to as A3) and Santosh Kumar Rai (hereinafter referred to as A4) have been convicted and sentenced, and Prakash Chandra Pandey (hereinafter referred to as A5) has been acquitted, by the Special Judge / Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 2. A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5, and also Sri Yagya Narayan Dixit (hereinafter referred to as the deceased accused, in short DA), who died in course of trial, were charged for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with murder of Madhumita Shukla (victim). 3. A1 was charged under Section 201 of IPC on the ground that he tried to destroy the evidence of murder by trying to destroy the foetus of the victim. A1 was also charged under Section 342 of IPC for wrongfully confining Rishi Khare ...
Dan Singh Bisht and Others Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Departm ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: 1. These are the extremely old matters pertaining to the year 2001. The counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is on record. In spite of repeated opportunities provided to the State of Uttarakhand, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand, as yet. Although learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand - Mr. N.P. Sah has submitted before the Court that he has received instructions in the matter only on 10.07.2012. 2. Heard Mr. Alok Mehra and Ms. Vandhna Singh, advocates for the petitioners, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. All these writ petitions have been filed by the employees of Uttar Pradesh State Employees Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), which has a registered office at 742 Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Prior to 09.09.2000, before creation of the State of Uttarakhand,...
Mukhtyar Ahmad Vs. Mangta HusaIn and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-2010, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Haridwar in origial suit No. 158 of 2006, Mangta Husain and another versus Mukhtyar Ahmad and another, as well as the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2011, passed by District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010, Mukhtyar Ahmad vs. Mangta and others. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that original suit No. 158 of 2006, was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the averment that their father Rafiq Ahmad was the owner in possession of the land of Khata No. 292, Khasra No. 1303, measuring 0-262 hectare situated in village Ahmadpur Kadachh Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. After the death of Rafiq Ahmad on 22-4-1998, the plaintiffs became the owner of the land and upon intervention by defe...
Dhan Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Present criminal appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants Dhan Singh and Pooran Singh 2 who have been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal on 18.12.2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Both the appellants have been awarded imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in relation to the said offence. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that Informant Kumari Shobha lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 22.07.2004 with pradhan of gaon sabha Dabrad, district Pauri Garhwal alleging that on 22.07.2004 at 12:30 pm her father Balwant Singh son of Madho Singh was killed by Pooran Singh and Dhan Singh, both sons of Gabar Singh in the courtyard (chowk) of Bhagwan Singh with a wooden flat used for sitting in villages (chaukla). Since the injury was inflicted on Balwant Singhs head therefore, victim died. The incident was seen by informants mother and brother. 3. The occurrence took place on 22.07.2004 at abou...
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sundar Lal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: 1. This government appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5.4.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No.33/1998, State Vs. Sunder Lal whereby the accused Sunder Lal has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 302, 328 and 394 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 24.12.1997 at about 12 noon at P.S. Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal by one Sunil Singh, who is the brother of deceased Jaipal Singh. In the FIR, he states that on 23.12.1997 at about 8 AM, while his brother Jaipal Singh S/o Narain Singh, aged about 43 years, went from his village to collect Bajri. After collecting the same, he was climbing down to his village. On his way, accused Sunder Lal asked him i.e. the brother of the complainant to stop over and have a Biri. Soon thereafter, accused Sunder Lal brought his brother in an unconscious state at the complainants shop. When the complainant asked as to what had...
Mrs. Namrata Suri Vs. Rahul Kumar Gupta
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) 1. Smt. Namrata Suri (wife) filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Rahul Kumar Gupta (husband) principally on the ground of cruelty. In his written statement, husband denied all facts pleaded by the wife in the plaint suggesting metting out of cruelty by the husband to the wife. In addition to that, husband stated that he is entitled to divorce also under Section 13 of the Act, inasmuch as, wife meted out cruelty to him. He pleaded factors pertaining to such cruelty. There was, thus, a cross suit. Accordingly, issues were settled. However, the issues pertaining to cruelty, being the ground of divorce claimed both by the wife and the husband, were not gone-in in as much as rebuttal evidence by the husband to the evidence of the wife to that effect was not tendered, instead both of them represented to the court on 19th May, 2009 that they accept the mutual claim for divorce. From 20t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »