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.
Uttarakhand Police Through Senior Superintendent of Police Vs. Laxman ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 170 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant “ opposite party No. 2 and directed it to pay sum of Rs.6,93,570/- to the respondent No . 1 “ complainant towards the amount of the insurance policy purchased by late Sh. Viresh Kumar, within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that in case the award amount is not paid by the appellant within the stipulated period, then the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the above amount @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against the respondent No. 2 “ opposite party No....
Mohan Lal and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1) The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 18.11.2009, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1066 of 2009, State vs Pramod Bhatt and others, under Sections 420, 413, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to police station, Raipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate CBI, Dehradun. 2) Complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) lodged an FIR against five accused persons, including the applicants, on 04.08.2009, at police station, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 413, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, including the applicants, under Sections 420, 313, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against ...
Rajendra Singh Alias Vikky and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ot ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1) Since both these applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have arisen out of same FIR, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order, for the sake of brevity. 2) The applicants, by means of present applications / petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to set aside impugned charge-sheet dated 27.08.2010, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1166 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 120B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 3) An FIR was lodged by informant (respondent no. 3 herein) against two named accused persons (applicants herein) on 31.07.2010, for the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants for the offences ...
Sub Divisional Officer U.P.S.E.B., Almora and Another Vs. Paan Singh M ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.04.1998 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 166 of 1995, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards compensation, cost of litigation and other expenses and Rs. 1,000/- for the money spent by the complainant on generator, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant has also been held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the above amount. The consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 2 has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant“Sh. Paan Singh Mehta had applied to the Electricity Department for two days temporary electricity connection with a load of 2 KW and had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 520/- vide receipt No. 22/649975/94 on 26.04.1995 for his sons marriage...
Yogendra Singh Bhandari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) 1) The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 09.11.2009, charge-sheet of case crime no. 82 of 2009, relating to police station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi, under Sections 353, 504, 506 of IPC, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 819 of 2009, State vs Yogendra Singh, for the selfsame offences, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. 2) Complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) lodged an FIR against the applicant, at police station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi on 23.09.2009, which was registered as FIR no. 82 of 2009, under Sections 504, 506 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and accused was summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 of IPC. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved. 3) As per FIR, it was alleged by a police personnel, deputed at the residence of...
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Executive Engineer ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the application dated 22.04.2013 Paper No. 15C/1 (Paper No. 19) moved by the revisionists for recalling the order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the revisionists. 2. The respondent “ complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal, alleging therein that the electricity department has issued him a bill for sum of Rs.1,03,457/-, which was not correct. It is further alleged that on 05.09.2012, the electricity department sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal for recovering the above amount from the complainant as arrears of land revenue. The complainant has stated that the said demand is illegal and filed the consumer complaint ...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Poonam Sharma and Others
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 358 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant “ opposite party No. 7 and directed the appellant to pay the balance amount to respondent No. 1 “ complainant and also to pay damages of Rs. 3,000/-, within a month from the date of the order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Sh. Mukeshwar Dutt Sharma, the husband of the complainant had died on 17.06.2004 on account of electric shock. The husband of the complainant was under the employment of opposite party No. 4 “ State Bank of India, Meerut. The deceased husband of the complainant had taken housing loan from opposite party No. 1 “ State Bank of India, Roorkee. It is alleged th...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Haridwar Vs. Neeraj K ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 196 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellants and directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent No. 1 “ complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 07.11.2009, the complainant purchased a Santro G.L.S. E-3 car from the opposite party No. 3 “ Commercial Hyundai for sum of Rs. 3,53,800/-. The said vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 07.11.2009 to 06.11.2010. On 21.03.2010, on account of short circuit, fire broke out in the insured vehicle. The complainant submitted an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,20,154/-, but the insurance company paid sum of Rs. 64,035/- only a...
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dharmendra
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 265 of 2009. Vide its order, the District Forum has cancelled the recovery certificate issued by the Electricity Department against the complainant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant- Sh. Dharmendra lives in a joint family with his father and an electricity connection No. 067641 is in the name of his father. The complainant installed a Atta Chakki for his livelihood. According to the complainant the said Atta Chakki was run by a diesel engine and not by an electric motor. The complainant alleged that on 12.09.2008, the officials of the Electricity Department inspected his electricity connection and implicated him in a false case of power theft and lodged an F.I.R. against him. On 17.10.2009, the complainant was intimated about the issuance of recovery certificate of electricity dues against him through ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›