Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Uttaranchal Page:2

May 22 2013

Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Dehr ...

  • Decided on : 22-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 to provide the facilities of high standards to the people at large the petitioner runs several tourist bungalow and respondent No.2 was initially hired on daily wage basis by the petitioner as House Keeper in the year 1987. The services of the respondent No.2 were regularized against the minimum pay scale of House Keeper in the year 1993. The respondent No.2 feeling aggrieved by her placement while being regularized by the petitioner in the minimum pay scale of House Keeper filed a Civil Misc. ...

May 22 2013

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ummed Singh and Others

  • Decided on : 22-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 day and informed him that dead body of Madhu was lying in the forest of Shankarpur Marchul at the boarder of Almora, and that she committed suicide. The complainant expressed his apprehension that the husband and in-laws of Smt. Madhu have killed her and threw her dead body, as whenever Smt. Madhu came to her maternal house, she had complained of the accused respondents that they were harassing her for dowry. 3. On the basis of the above report, a case was registered against the accused ...

May 21 2013

Yogendra Dutta @ Sonu Dutta Vs. State of Uttarakhand

  • Decided on : 21-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 apprehended by the police party at about 8:45 p.m.; on being asked, appellant disclosed his identity and told the police party that he was carrying Charas in a white plastic bag being carried by him in his hand; J.C. Pathak PW3 told the appellant that if he wish, he could be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer/Magistrate; however, appellant agreed to be searched by the police party; despite the fact appellant agreed to be searched by the police party, Head Constable Mahendra Pal Singh was ...

May 21 2013

Rais Khan Vs. Satin Credit Care Network Limited

  • Decided on : 21-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 petitioner. However, no payment was made within the statutory period of notice, therefore, complaint. 4. Learned Magistrate, having perused the entire material made available on record, was pleased to summon the accused petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that at the time of taking loan, petitioner handed over some blank signed cheques to the complainant ...

May 21 2013

Suresh Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal

  • Decided on : 21-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 Chaakh (courtyard) of the house due to the heat. At about 12 in the night accused Suresh Ram entered into the Chaakh of the complainant from the window of upper story of the house and committed forcible rape upon her daughter. When her daughter raised alarm, then they reached at the Chaakh and caught the accused red-handedly. The accused came out by using force. It is further alleged in the written report that the prosecutrix is a deaf and dumb and at the time of incident she was 13 years of age ...

May 16 2013

Auab and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand

  • Decided on : 16-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 call was received by PW1 in the evening of 20th January, 2006 and not on 21st January, 2006, which is said to be the version of PW1 expressed before the Court. In the event, this call was received in the evening of 21st January, 2006 and not in the evening of 20th January, 2006, then, on 22nd January, 2006, PW1 received yet another call when the caller disclosed to PW1 the location, where the ransom amount was to be handed over. According to the prosecution, this happened on 21st January, 2006 ...

May 15 2013

Mohd. Habib Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others

  • Decided on : 15-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 Hon??ble 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., wherein she has stated that she herself has received Rs. 15,000/- sanctioned in her favour. He further submit that Smt. Sultani Begum has also filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police, Almora stating therein that she herself has received of Rs. 15,000/-, which was sanctioned in her feavour to be paid from the Chief Minsiter, discretionary fund. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contend that in view of the admission of Smt. Sultani ...

May 14 2013

Ravindra Brahmchari disciple Hans Raj Ji Maharaj Vs. Sachha Vaidic San ...

  • Decided on : 14-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 document, rather it is a case of cancellation of voidable document, in respect of which the suit before the Civil Court can be maintained. (6) In the above circumstances, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 11067 of 2012 also stands dismissed).

May 13 2013

Gyan Chand Revisionist Vs. State of Uttaranchal

  • Decided on : 13-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

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 asked the forest officials to open the barrier. Shri Gyan Chand (accused-revisionist) who was a member of legislative assembly (MLA) from Uttarkashi constituency, alighted from the taxi. Gyan Chand slapped Ashok Sharma on his face. He (accused-revisionist) also hurled abuses at him and threatened the informant with dire consequences. The member of legislative assembly (MLA) was accompanied by two people excluding the driver. MLA (revisionist- Gyan Chand) said that the officials of forest department ...

May 10 2013

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Suvlesh and Others

  • Decided on : 10-May-2013

Court : Uttaranchal

B.S. Verma, J. (Oral). This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2009 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.106 of 2007, Smt. Suvlesh vs. Smt. Kusum Agarwal and another, whereby a compensation of Rs.30,400/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% per annum against the appellant The New India Assurance Company, as mentioned in the impugned award. Briefly stated facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that on 25.4.2007 at 3 PM when the claimant/respondent no.1 Smt. Suvlesh was going from Jwalapur to Roorkee by car bearing no.UP10B-8686, a bus bearing no.UP11F-5182, coming from the opposite direction, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed with the car, resulting injuries to the claimant. The claimant was 28 years of age on the date of accident. The claimant thus filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- as compensation.Opposite party nos.1 and 2/respondent nos.2 and 3, i.e., the owner and driver of the bus, respectively, contested the claim petition by filing a joint written statement and alleging therein that the claim petition has been filed on the wrong facts. On the date of accident, the driver of the bus was having valid driving licence and the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company. Opposite party no.3, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. also filed its written ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //