Uttaranchal Court February 2014 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.
Rajendra Bhatt Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1) PW1 Parwati Devi wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Station Officer, police station, Banbasa, District Champawat on 15.03.2001, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 14.03.2001, at 09:00 P.M., her brother-in-law Rajendra Bhatt set her house on fire, as a consequence of which, household articles were burnt. Since Rajendra Bhatts wife has died and he wanted to marry with the informant Parwati Devi forcibly, therefore, he set her house ablaze in order to kill her. It was also alleged in the complaint that Rajendra Bhatt harassed her on almost each and every day. Informants life was saved with the intervention of her neighbours. 2) The incident allegedly took place on 14.03.2001, at 09:00 P.M., and the FIR was lodged on 15.03.2001, at 08:30 A.M., in police station, Banbasa. Accused was named in the FIR. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 4 kms. and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the FIR, which wa...
Senior Superintendent Indian Postal Department, Dehradun and Another V ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
C.C. Pant, Member, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 207 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the Opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/-, within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant “ Sh. Amit Srivastava had sent œNet Connector? to Varanasi on 18.04.2011 by Postal Departments Speed Post service from the Post Office, Har ki Paudi, Haridwar. The Postal Department could not deliver the speed-post article to the addressee. After seven days, when the said parcel could not reach its destination, the complainant went to the Post Office and asked about the status of parcel, but he could not get any satisfactory reply. According to the complainant, the said parcel has not reached its destination til...
Dr. Nitesh Malik Vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. Dr. Nitesh Malik, S/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar, R/o 56, Rajdhani Enclave, G.M.S. Road, Near Balliwala Chowk, Dehradun, who has filed a consumer complaint No. 306 of 2013 before the District Forum, Dehradun, has moved an application dated 23.08.2013 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating therein that the following persons have disobeyed the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 10 of 2013 and hence action be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. "1- Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun 2- Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., 18 E.C. Road, Dehradun 3- Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun 4- Sh. Upendra, Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (South), ...
State Bank of India and Another Vs. R.C. Srivastava and Another
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 118 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum upto 02.02.2005 and also pay an interest @ 7% per annum on the said amount from 02.02.2005 till the date of filing the consumer complaint. 2. In nutshell, the consumer complaint filed by Sh. R.C. Srivastava and Smt. Santosh Srivastava - complainants before the District Forum, Dehradun, is with regard to refusal of the payment to the complainants against a fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 1 lac and interest accrued on it by State Bank of India, Veerbhadra Geeta Nagar Branch, Rishikesh “ opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the maturity amount of F.D.R. has been adjusted against the loan taken by them. The complainants version ...
Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint No. 108 of 2010. 2. As stated in the consumer complaint filed by the complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal, the electricity meter installed in his house stopped functioning in the year 2004. The complainant made several complaints to the Electricity Department, but the Electricity Department did not take any action and issued bills with current reading of the meter as œIDF?. Though the complainant did not default in payment of the electricity bills and deposited the amounts shown in the bills, but he repeatedly made requests to the Electricity Department in this regard. His letter dated 09.08.2005 has been duly received by the Upkhand Adhikari, Clement Town, Power Sub-Station, but the Electricity Department did not take any action. Instead, the officials of the Electricity Department disconnected the c...
Diwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1) In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion, at the instance of Bachi Singh, who lodged an FIR on 18.08.1991, at 10:00 A.M., in police station, Bageshwar, the then, District Almora, against three named accused persons, which was registered as case crime no. 82 of 1991, under Section 304B of IPC. After the investigation, a final report was submitted. Final report was rejected by learned Magistrate. After further investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons, namely Diwan Singh alias Durgapal Singh, Chhatrapal Singh and Smt. Ramuli Devi for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2) PW1 Narayan Singh and PW2 Jeewan Singh were examined on behalf of the prose...
Registrar, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Srinagar and Ano ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 120 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the correct result of respondent No. 1 “ complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 1 “ complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ Km. Eshita Sharma took admission in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) course in K.L.D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Roorkee “ opposite party No. 3. In the first and second year of the said course, she secured 74.1% and 73.5% marks respectively and stood at 2nd position in the College. It is alleged that she had done well in the 3rd year examin...
Registrar, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Srinagar, Garhwa ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 120 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the correct result of respondent No. 1 “ complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 1 “ complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ Km. Eshita Sharma took admission in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) course in K.L.D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Roorkee “ opposite party No. 3. In the first and second year of the said course, she secured 74.1% and 73.5% marks respectively and stood at 2nd position in the College. It is alleged that she had done well in the 3rd year exami...
Subhash Goyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.02.2010, summoning order dated 14.05.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 719 of 2010, titled as State vs. Subhash Goyal and others, under Sections 147, 457, 427, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the SC / ST Act), pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 2. Informant/respondent no. 2 lodged a first information report on 13.01.2010 at PS Rishikesh, District Dehradun, against three named accused persons including the applicant. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet and the accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed ...
Saran Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 30.10.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2660 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Saran Singh and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. 2. Respondent no. 2 lodged a first information report against three named accused persons including the applicants at PS Vikas Nagar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 123 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants. 3. According to the firs...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »