Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Pyar Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was elected as a Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Aarsh Block Bhilangana District Tehri Garhwal in the year 2008. The Gram Pradhan is elected for a period of five years. Respondent No. 6 Jai Pal Singh, who is a resident of the same village, moved a complaint before the State Government alleging certain irregularities against the elected Gram Pradhan i.e. present petitioner. On receiving this complaint, the Officer, authorized by the State Government conducted an enquiry into the matter. The procedure as to what has to be done under these conditions is given in Rule 3 of Uttar Pardesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). Rule 3 of Rules 1997 reads as under:- 3. Procedure relating to complaints:- (1) Any person maki...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. H.M. Kapoor, Haridwar and ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
B.C. Kandpal, President, J. 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 60 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount to the complainant and also to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (Mediclaim Policy) from the opposite party No. 1 The New India Assurance Company Limited (appellant before this Commission) for himself, his wife and son for assured sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. The policy was valid for the period from 03.01.2008 to 02.01.2009. Prior to the said policy, the complainant had also previously purchased the same policy in the last year, which was valid fr...
Arvind Singh Arora Vs. the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Dev ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Barin Ghosh, C.J. Oral: 1. Until about 2003, petitioner was working as Stenographer with National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) at its branch office situate at Chandigarh. At Chandigarh, there was a cooperative society registered under the Central Cooperative Societies Act by the name NABARD Employees Cooperative Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society Limited. Only an existing employee of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development could be a member of said Society. Petitioner, as an employee of NABARD, became a member of the said Society. Soon thereafter in the year 1994, he became not only a member of the Managing Committee of the said Society, but also its President. He continued to remain such President until 2003. In 2003, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. On such promotion, petitioner was transferred to the regional office of NABARD situate at Dehradun. On 7thOctober, 2004, the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Union Te...
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-19-2012
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 31.03.1999, passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1992, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh @ Jassu, under Section 376 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. 2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.03.1992, at about 3.00 P.M. accused/appellant Jaswant Singh @ Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh of Village Govindpur, picked up Ms. Sonu (victim) aged five years, and enticed away her from his village stating that he would leave her to her parents, about whom it was told that they were working in the field. On the way accused/appellant Jaswant Singh @ Jassu took the victim to the suga...
Maheshanand Kimni Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-19-2012
Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anup Verma, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- I.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 01-07-1990, the date since when the petitioner started to officiate as Lecturer and teaching Intermediate Classes as Lecturer in Civics Subject. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the benefit of past officiating service rendered by the petitioner in the Institution as Lecturer in Civics w.e.f. 01-07-1990 and pay arrears of salary to him w.e.f. 01-07-1990 till 28-04-1992. III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award the costs of the writ petition t...
Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-19-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Ms. Menka Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioner in both the writ petitions is Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited. It is a sugar company which is presently in Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR) under the purview of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). Meanwhile, the operation, particularly the production of sugar in the factory continues. The company was supplied sugarcane by the farmers and sugarcane cultivators in Uttarakhand. The price of sugarcane has not been given to the these cultivators and consequently under section 17 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Cane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act), recovery...
Har Singh GusaIn and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretar ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
Oral: Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions the petitioners have challenged their transfer orders from one District Rural Development Agency (for short DRDA) to another. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and perused papers on record. 3. Brief facts are that the writ petitioner [of writ petition no. 872 of 2011 (S/S)] Har Singh Gusain was initially appointed as junior clerk by District Magistrate/Chairman DRDA, Nainital, vide letter dated 02.03.1987. Later, he was promoted as Stenographer vide order dated 28.02.1992, by Chief Development Officer/ Chairman DRDA, Nainital. He is transferred vide impugned order dated 11.07.2011, passed by respondent no. 2 Dy. Commissioner (Administration) Rural Development, Pauri Garhwal, from DRDA Nainital to DRDA Champawat. Aggrieved by said order, the writ petition has been filed by said writ petitioner, inter alia on the ground that an employee of one DRDA cannot be transferred to another. 4. In writ petition no. 11...
Uttarakhand Shramjivi Patrakar Union Vs. Labour Commissioner/Registrar ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: 1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union of working journalists in the State of Uttarakhand in the name of Uttarakhand Shramjivi Patrakar Union. The petitioner is aggrieved that after the registration of the petitioner Union as a Trade Union another Trade Union has been registered by the Registrar in Uttarakhand in the name of Shramjivi Patrakar Union Uttarakhand. Two name resembles each other and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Registrar Trade Union under Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for cancellation of the Trade Union i.e. Shramjivi Patrakar Union Uttarakhand. The Registrar Trade Union though vide its order dated 10.12.2008 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the grounds that since the Trade Union has already been registered the only remedy to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Act before the appropriate authority. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashsith...
Smt. Tarsem Kaur and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral: (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) The appellants, in the instant case, are the mother-in-law, elder brother-in-law and elder sister-in-law of the victim. The First Information Report, in the instant case, was lodged by the victim herself. Each of the appellants herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the First Information Report, the fingerprint of the victim has been affixed. The First Information Report was proved in course of trial and was exhibited by the Investigating Officer. He was cross-examined at length, but it was not suggested that the fingerprint appearing on the First Information Report is not that of the victim. 2. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that the appellants forced her to consume Sulphos (Aluminum Phosphide), because she and her paternal family had not be able to meet certain dowry demands, as were put forward by the appellants. The Investigat...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›