Uttaranchal Court January 2013 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.
Satnam Sardul Singh Vs. Arbal Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
C.C. Pant, Member This consumer complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Shri Satnam Sardul Singh S/o Late Shri Sardul Singh, R/o Sunargaon, Athoorwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as Complainant) against Shri Arbal Singh S/o Shri Bagad Singh R/o Gram Jhabrawala, Doiwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as Opposite Party), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing his house. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs in his consumer complaint:- i. The opposite party be directed to indemnify to the complainant with the entire amount spent on construction of the house i.e., Rs. 15,36,209/-. ii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify with 40% increase as rise in cost of construction due to inflation and price rise i.e, say Rs. 6,14,483/-. iii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant for ...
Ess Ell Motors, Rajpur Road and Another Vs. Himanshu Kirsali
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral: C.C. Pant, Member This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 192 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants opposite parties to remove the defects in the subject motorcycle to the full satisfaction of the respondent complainant and in default, to pay sum of Rs. 68,691/- to the respondent. The appellants were also directed to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. The above amount was directed to be paid within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount was directed to carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle {Unicorn Dazzler (CBF 15)} from the opposite party No. 1, the authorised dealer of the opposite pa...
M/S Commercial Motors (Dehradun) Private Limited Vs. Raghubeer Singh K ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
B.C. Kandpal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 24,330/- to the respondent complainant; Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of one month, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of the order till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is engaged in selling of vehicles. The complainant got a chassis bearing model No. SE/1613/42 booked through Kotdwar branch of the appellant. The cost of the chassis amounting to Rs. 9,03,000/- was deposited through bank draft on 22.05.2009, for which receipt was is...
Darban Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 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 19.06.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted accused/ appellant Darban Singh under section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/. The trial court has further directed that if the fine is not paid by the convict he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.04.1996, at about 8:00 p.m., P.W.3 Kundan Singh was in his tea stall situated in village Harsila, when accused Darban Singh came there in a drunken state, and the two started quarreling. Thereafter, accused Darban Singh took out a knife and stabbed Kundan Singh. The ne...
Madan Pal and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 17.07.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Madan Pal, Bijendra Pal and Parasram under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The trial court has convicted accused/appellant No.2 Dharmu under Section 324 of I.P.C., and he too has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.05.1994, at about noon, PW2 Sanjay along with his father Dayaram, grandfather Gainda and uncle Rajpal (PW1) was working in the sugarcane field in Village Kalasiya. When accused/ap...
Mahant Krishna Giri and Others Vs. Mrs. Deepa Devi
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 9-11-2012 shows that notice was issued to the respondent and apart from normal mode of service, liberty was given to the petitioner to serve Dasti upon the respondent. Notice was served Dasti upon the respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of service in the Registry of this Court. A perusal of office report reveals that notice was also sent by registered post on 21-11-2012 to the respondent but neither undelivered envelope was returned nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent by filing Vakalatnama. Since a period of thirty days has already elapsed from the date of issue of notice by registered post, therefore, service is deemed sufficient on the respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2- 11-2012 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Civil...
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Jhandu S/O Chaman
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1996, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondent Jhandu from the charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the State/appellant, and learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/ respondent, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.03.1995, P.W.1 Ravindra was sitting in his fathers shop, in village Numberpur, when at about 6:30 p.m., accused Jhandu came and purchased some items from the shop. He (Jhandu) started leaving the shop without making payment for the articles purchased. On this, P.W.1 Ravindra demanded the money whereafter accused started quarreling with P.W.1 Ravindra. P.W.1 Ravindra thereafter came out, and stopped Jhandu leaving without paymen...
Deepak and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-01-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. (1) Both these appeals, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2001, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Shyam (S/o Raj Kumar), Bunti (S/o Ram Kishore), Deepak (S/o Ram Kishore) and Banti (S/o Ramesh Kumar) under section 323 read with section 34 and under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. Each one of convicts has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 323/34 I.P.C, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 324/34 of I.P.C. (2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, and Learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.04.1999, at about 7.30 p.m., PW1 Suraj Thapa was o...
Vishva Kalyan Kamgar Sangthan and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jan-01-2013
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. M. C. Pant, Advocate assisted by Mr. D. S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. B. S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.7/Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union at Pune, Maharashtra for the automobile trade, whereas the petitioner no.2 is not a registered trade union. It seeks to espouse the cause of workers of Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pantnagar / respondent no.7. It further claims that since many of the workers of Bajaj Auto Ltd. are its members, it can espouse the cause of the workers in the capacity of a registered trade union. 3. On the last occasion, Mr. S. N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate and earlier Mr. J. P. Cama, Advocate for the respondent no.7 appeared in the court and had inter-alia submitted that only a trade union registered in the State of Uttarakhand can espouse the cause of the workers. The principal argument was that the petitioners bef...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›