Uttaranchal Court May 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.
Nasir Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-27-2013
Alok Singh, J (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2008 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/17 (C) of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of one year under Section 8/17 (C) of the NDPS Act. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 31.07.2007 SI Abdul Kalam with Constable Ravindra Singh, Constable Kuldeep Arya, SI Om Prakash Sharma (PW1), SI Vikas Kumar (PW2), Constable Firoz Khan (SOG) left the police station vide report no. 26 at 10.10 p.m. for collecting the information about car lifters and suspects; when police party reached at Poolbhatta, police informer passed on secret information to PW3 SI Abdul Kalam that one person from Bareilly was carrying br...
Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Dehr ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-22-2013
Oral: B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sandeep Kothari, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Dabral, Counsel for the respondent No.2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.2.200 and 24.5.2000, passed by Labour Court Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 40/1999. Vide impugned order dated 16.2.2000, the application of the workman U/S 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act was allowed and direction was issued to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,272/-, the arrear of salary during the period 1.12.88 to 20.8.96 and if the payment is not made within a month interest @ 13% per annum shall be payable. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as cost of the suit. Vide impugned order dated 24.5.2000 the review application was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is an undertaking of State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand). In order to promote the cause of tourism and...
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ummed Singh and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-22-2013
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 58/2003, whereby the accused respondents, namely, Ummed Singh, Vikram Singh and Smt. Bichhana Devi have been acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304B and 201 IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.6.2002, a report was lodged by Sunil Patwal with the averments that about four years ago, his cousin sister Madhu alias Mandodari Devi was married to Vikram Singh, S/o Ummedi Singh, and out of this wedlock two offsprings were born. Sunil Patwal has further averred that on 8.6.2002, Ummed Singh (the father-in-law of deceased), came at his house and told him that his daughter-in-law Madhu was missing since 7.6.2002, and he asked the complainant to inform him in case she come there. The complainant has further averred that Ummed Singh again came at his house in the evening of the same da...
Rais Khan Vs. SatIn Credit Care Network Limited
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-21-2013
Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. For the reasons stated, urgency application no. 2057 of 2013 is allowed. Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the matter right now. 2. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the summoning order dated 12.12.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no. 248 of 2011 whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to summon the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. As per the contents of complaint, petitioner issued one cheque bearing no. 013393 dated 04.07.2011 of Rs. 72065/- of ICICI Bank, Branch Haldwani in favour of the complainant/respondent in discharge of his financial liability; on submission of the said cheque, cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient fund; complainant issued statutory notice to the petitioner through Advocate by registered post AD on 01.08.2011 on the correct address of the...
Suresh Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-21-2013
B.S. Verma, J. This appeal, under Section 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No. 18/2007, State Vs. Suresh Ram, convicting the accused U/S 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and further convicting the accused U/S 458 I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused was further directed to undergo one years R.I. under the above sections. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Sunita Devi lodged written report, Ext. Ka.1, at the Police Station Kapkot on 29-5-2007, with the allegations that her husband is ill from a long period and she is the only responsible person at her house. On 23.5.2007 in the night her family members were sleeping inside her house and her daughter Km. Reena was sleeping in the C...
Yogendra Dutta @ Sonu Dutta Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-21-2013
Alok Singh, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar dated 20thJuly, 2009 in Special Sessions Trial No.63 of 2007, whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 31/01/2007, Inspector J.C. Pathak PW3 along-with Pooran Lal Verma PW1, H.C.P. Mahendra Pal Singh PW4, Constable Harish Sharma, Constable Balkrishna, and Constable Bhupendra Singh left Thana vide G.D. No. 45 at 6:40 p.m. for law and order duty; when police party was going from village Alawardi towards village Naugawannath, they noticed appellant coming on foot; having seen the police party, appellant started rushing towards village Naugawannath; however, he was apprehe...
Auab and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-16-2013
Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) At 6:30 PM of 19th January, 2006, a missing report was lodged by Sabir (PW5). In that, it was stated that Mahran, son of Rahman (PW1), was returning from school, but since then, he did not reach home and searches made out did not yield any result. At 0015 AM of 20th January, 2006, PW1 informed the police that around 11/11:30 PM of 19th January, 2006, he received a phone-call from an unknown person, who stated that his son is in the custody of the caller, and that, payment of ransom of Rs.6 lacs would ensure release of his son. PW1, thereafter again on 20th January, 2006, informed the police that around 6:00 PM, he received yet another call when the caller demanded a ransom of Rs.5 lacs as a condition precedent for release of his son. On 21st January, 2006, once again, a call was received and, then, the ransom claim was reduced to Rs.2 lacs. While deposing in Court, PW1 held out that this call was received in the evening (Saayen). According to the prosecution, this ca...
Mohd. Habib Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-15-2013
Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has invoked inheritant jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of entire proceedings of criminal case no. 09 of 2009 State Vs. Madan Mohan Karnatak and others under Section 420, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, Almora, District-Almora. Brief facts of the case are that inter alia that a first information report was lodged on 13.05.2006 by the S.D.M. Almora stating therein that Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) were sanctioned to be paid to Sultani Begum W/o Noor Khan R/o N.T.D., Almora from the discretionary fund of Honble The Chief Minister. However, present petitioner along with Sanover Khan and Madan Mohan Karnatak by playing fraud and manipulation have illegally received the amount which was sanctioned to be paid to Sultani Begum. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that Smt. Sultani Begum was interrogated by the investigation officer and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., ...
Ravindra Brahmchari Disciple Hans Raj Ji Maharaj Vs. Sachha Vaidic San ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-14-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. (1) Heard. (2) This revision is directed against the order dated 18.08.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 21 of 2011, whereby said court has rejected the application 44C moved by the defendant under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (3) Briefly stated the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of Will dated 30.08.2010 on the ground that the same was fraudulently obtained. (4) Contention of learned counsel for the defendant is that a suit is cognizable by the Revenue Court, and as such, the same is not maintainable before the Civil Court. On that ground, the application 44C was moved by the defendant, seeking direction from the trial court, to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. (5) Learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist failed to show that the Revenue Court has any power to cancel a document on the ground of alleged fraud. It is not a case of a non est or void doc...
Gyan Chand Revisionist Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-13-2013
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Present criminal revision was preferred by the accused-revisionist Gyan Chand, against the judgment and order on 09.06.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in criminal appeal no. 14 of 2004, whereby the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the accused-revisionist and affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.05.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, convicting and sentencing the accused-revisionist under Sections 353 and 504 IPC. 2. One Ashok Kumar Sharma, Culture Jamadar, Gangori Barrier In-charge, wrote a complaint to PS Maneri on 28.09.1999, stating therein that the Gangori Barrier was closed on 27.09.1999 as usual. A taxi bearing registration no. UP-09828 came at 8:35 p.m. Two bags were kept on the rooftop of the taxi. The informant as well as his associate Kripal Singh wanted to check the bags kept on the rooftop of the taxi. Taxi driver refused the request of the forest officials to stop the vehicle. The taxi driver aske...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »