Court : Uttaranchal
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard learned counsel for the review applicant on the delay condonation application. I find sufficient ground to allow the delay condonation application. Accordingly, the delay condonation application in filing the review application is hereby allowed. Also heard on the review application. A suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the husband/respondent at Champawat. The wife/applicant presently staying in Haridwar, and therefore, sought transfer of the case from the District Champawat to the District Haridwar. On her transfer application notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2013, which reads as under:- œMr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, present for the applicant. Issue notice to respondent Pradeep Kumar Joshi. List immediately after service of notice on the respondent. The applicant is allowed to get the notice served DASTI, and file affidavit of service, in addition to normal mode of service.? Since there w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners are the B.T.C. trained candidates and they have challenged the order dated 4th March, 2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby œShiksha Mitras? have been exempted from qualifying a test, which is known as œTeachers Eligibility Test?, in other words such persons can be appointed as teachers in primary schools, even if they have not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test. The petitioners on the other hand have to qualify such test for being appointed as primary school teachers. 2. After the Right to Elementary Education was included as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution of India as Article 21-A, the Parliament has enacted a legislation i.e. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In pursuance of the Act, a Government of India body i.e. National Council for Teacher Education was delegated with the authority to frame guidelines regarding the eligibility of teach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
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 order dated 24.02.2014 and summoning order dated 15.12.2008, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1641 of 2008, State of Uttarakhand vs Pancham Das, under Sections 9, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (I class), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. 2) A charge-sheet is submitted against the present applicant under Sections 9, 49B, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 3) The first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance ought to have been taken only on the complaint filed by any of the officer of the Wild Life Department. Section 55 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. Appellants Rampal, Moni Sharma, Satis and Somdutt have assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.7.2002 rendered against them by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 284/95, State v. Rampal and 3 Others. The said trial pertains to Police Station Gangnahar, Crime No. 113/95. All these accused persons were tried for the offences of Section 452, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Trial culminated into their conviction for the offences of Section 452 and 307/34 IPC. They have been appropriately sentenced by the Trial Judge. 2. The backdrop of the prosecution version as disclosed in the FIR is that Rampal Kashyap, resident of Nayi Basti, Shyam Nagar, Roorkee intruded in the house of injured Mulkraj along with his some companions. They started to beat Mulkraj. Seeing the occurrence, his daughter Ms. Geeta Saini (informant) and his father raised alarm. Meanwhile, Rampal Kashyap stabbed the knife blow in the abdomen of her father while his other companion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) 1. Applicant Sumer Singh, who is in jail in connection with FIR No. 623 of 2013, relating to offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC, Police Station “ Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. A first information report was lodged against unknown person, who was the owner of a mobile phone no. 9927933856, under Section 386 of IPC. Threatening calls were received by the wife of the complainant from such mobile number. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the matter has been settled amicably outside the Court. Such a fact is also mentioned in the affidavit of Sugandh Kumar Singh, which has been filed along with Urgency Application. Applicant is in jail since 04.01.2004 and he has no previous criminal history. 5. Considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute ami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a practitioner of Ayurveda and Unani system of medicines. In short, he is an œAyurvedic? Doctor. He is aggrieved by orders dated 06.05.2013 (including its amendment dated 07.05.2013) and dated 09.05.2013 passed by Controller Board of Indian Medicine Uttarakhand and also order dated 19.07.2013 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Ayush, Dehradun. Lastly, by an amendment in the writ petition he has also challenged the notification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India dated 27.07.2013 by which his œseat? has been declared vacant. 2. The petitioner was initially registered as an Ayurvedic Doctor with the State Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan. He later on got a temporary registration with the Bhartiya Chakitsa Parishad Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as œBoard?), after getting No Objection Certificate from the counter part of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant Pushpendra @ Shibbu, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 269 of 2013, relating to offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 306, 309 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. Sushila (victim) eloped with Pushpendra alias Shibbu (accused-applicant). They went to Bulandsahar. There was love affair between them. When the first information report was lodged against the applicant, his father, his bua (aunt) and his father was arrested, Pushpendra and Sushila decided to commit suicide. Accordingly, both of them consumed poison. Whereas Sushila died, present applicant Pushpendra survived. According to postmortem report, the age of the victim was 22 years. Co-accused, i.e., father and bua of the applicant were granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Udham S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 09.01.2013 directed that awarded compensation should be recovered from the owner of the vehicle, on the ground that driver was having fake driving license. Honble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company reported in 2013 (10) SCC 217 having relied upon judgment passed by three-Judge Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 has held as under: œThe matter was subsequently considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297. The said Bench was of the view that in case the insured did not take reasonable and adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence, the liability would still be open-ended and will have to be determined on the basis of facts of each case. The relevant discussions are available...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Along with preferring the instant appeal, bail application of the appellant was also moved. The ground, seeking bail, was substantially confined to the infirmity in dying declaration, so we directed on 26.12.2013 for listing of the appeal for hearing, along with the bail application. Registry was, accordingly, directed to prepare paper-books and make the same available to learned counsel for the parties, as quickly as possible, but not later than 24.02.2014. From the records, we have verified that, on 02.01.2014, the same was got received by Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for the appellant. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior counsel was not inclined to argue the appeal on merits except for bail application. 2. Since more than two months have elapsed from passing the earlier order on 26.12.2013, we thought it proper to hear the appeal on merits instead of hearing the bail application alone. 3. Having heard the appeal on merits, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
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...
Tag this Judgment!