Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: uttaranchal Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.003 seconds)

Jul 11 2003 (HC)

Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Jul-11-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Utr6; 2004(1)AWC913(UHC)

orderrajesh tandon, j.1. heard sri k. s. verma for the petitioner arid sri nanak chand gupta, standing counsel for the respondents.2. the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner inter alia challenging the judgment and order dated 23-9-2002 and 10-4-2003 passed by the collector, hardwar as well as by the naib tehsildar, lakshar, district hardwar who has been impleaded as respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively.3. the facts leading to the present writ petition are that one govind sahai son of chiranji lal was the owner of khasara no. 1'31/32 situated in mauja laksari paragna manglaur tehsil laksar, district hardwar. it was alleged by the petitioner that on 1-6-1959 govind sahay executed a will in favour of lekhraj, father of the petitioner. lekhraj died on 11-1-1991 and the land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner and his three brothers. on 20-12-2000 order was passed regarding mutation by the naib tehsildar in the proceedings of case no. 416 of 1999 under the provisions of sections 34/35 of u. p. land revenue act. one bhartu respondent no. 4 on 17-7-2001 has moved a restoration application as well as for setting aside the order dated 20-12-2000 supported by an application under section 5 of the limitation act, for condonation of delay in filing the application. on 30-9-2002 order dated 20-12-2002 (20-12-2000) was set aside. against the said order a revision was filed and the same was dismissed on 10-4- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2003 (HC)

Madan Jyoti Verma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Oct-16-2003

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR328]; (2004)2UPLBEC75

rajesh tandon, j.1. by the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.6.1997 to the writ petition.2. brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent no. 2 on the post of dairymen in dehradun on 6.7.89 on the pay scale of rs. 305-5-390. the petitioner was promoted on the post of assistant supervisor on 10-8-1992 by the order dated 16th september, 1992 in the pay scale of rs. 950-1500/-.3. on 11.12.1995 the respondent no. 2 has passed the order of suspension of the petitioner. however, charge sheet was issued on 6th february, 1996. on 20th may 1996 petitioner was terminated.4. against the order of termination of the petitioner has approached the labour court in case no. 1016 (1) of 1997 under section 6(3) of the industrial disputes act. on 5th june, 1989. the petitioner has lost the case no. 1016 of 1997 and as such the termination order dated 20.5.1996 was challenged in the writ petition. the petitioner has filed the writ petition no. 9571 of 1998, madan jyoti v. presiding officer, labour court, dehradun and ors.5. the counsel for the petitioner has stated that the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent writ petition no. 1420 of 2001 (9571/1998).6. in view of the statement made by the parties the writ petition is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2003 (HC)

Khyali Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal Through the Secretary, Revenue and ...

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Oct-31-2003

Reported in : (2004)1UPLBEC24

rajesh tandon, j. 1. heard sri b.s. khanka, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri b.d. kandpal, learned standing counsel.2. by means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give charge/joining to the petitioner on the post of kanungo/revenue inspector according to the promotion order dated 1/2.9.2003.3. brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner is a senior patwari and belongs to schedule caste category in the district almora but, he was not promoted for the post of revenue inspector/kanungo. therefore, he has filed an appeal before the commissioner, kumaon mandal, nainital on 5th june, 2003. the petitioner has prayed in the appeal that he may be promoted as his juniors (schedule caste) have been promoted. it was stated that in the final seniority list, the number of the petitioners were 125 and for the promotion 18% reservation was given to the schedule caste candidates. the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the promotion.4. on appeal filed by the petitioner a fresh seniority list was prepared, vide order dated 1st/2nd september, 2003 passed by the district magistrate, almora.5. there are 17 posts of patwari/revenue inspector/kanungo according to the seniority list, which has been filed by way of annexure-4 to the writ petition.6. both the parties have agreed that in the light of the order dated lst/2nd of september, 2003 direction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2003 (HC)

Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Apr-08-2003

Reported in : 2004CriLJ1169

orderirshad hussain, j.1. the present criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 of the code of criminal (hereinafter for short 'code') has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in criminal case. no. 56 of 2001 after setting aside the summoning order dated 16-11-2001 passed by i additional chief judicial magistrate, hardwar and also judgment and order dated 29-4-2002 passed by learned sessions judge, hardwar in criminal revision no. 20 of 2002.2. heard sri k.s. verma, learned counsel for applicants and sri lok pal singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned a.g.a. for state.3. respondent no. 2 complainant filed an application under section 156(3) of the code before the learned magistrate alleging that on 23-8-2001 at about 11 a.m., eight accused named therein and who are the petitioners in the present petition trespassed into his agricultural plot and assaulted him. out of these eight, one suresh kumar gave a knife blow and another named as rajbeer fired a shot from, pistol which fortunately did not hit the said victim. as a result of the assault he sustained injuries. the report of the incident was not lodged by the police and a registered letter to the s.s.p., hardwar also did not bear any fruits. the learned magistrate passed an order directing the concerned s.o., police station to register the f.i.r. and investigate the same. after investigation final report was submitted on the ground that no witness claimed to have seen the occurrence. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2003 (HC)

Mohan Chandra Tewari Vs. Harish Chandra Bhandari and Etc.

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Feb-26-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Utr10

orderp.c. verma, j.1. in these two revisions a common question arises for decision on the arguments advanced by the parties counsel, therefore, both the revisions are being decided by one and common judgment.2. both these revisions have been filed against the decree passed by the judge small cause courts/district judge, almora in s. c. c. suits nos. 6 of 1987 and 5 of 1987 respectively on 2-5-1998. these suits were filed for eviction of the revisionist, recovery of rent and damages and mesne profits. after framing of issues and evidence led by the parties, the trial court decreed the suits and passed the decree for eviction, recovery of rent and damages and also mesne profits.3. feeling aggrieved, the revisionist filed these revisions on various grounds. during course of argument, the learned senior ad-vdcate sri ravi kiran jain argued only one point that the plaints in suits do not disclose any cause of action. therefore, the suits were liable to be dismissed under order 7, rule 11 of the civil procedure code. the trial court ought to have dismissed the suits even after the framing of issues at any stage of the trial of the suits. he relied on a supreme court decision in the case of azhar hussain v. rajiv gandhi, reported in 1980 supp scc 315 : (air 1986 so 1253), and submitted that the plaints were cleverly drafted in order to get rid of the provisions of order 7, rule 11 of the c. p. c. there was no real cause of actions set out in the plaints, clever drafting creating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2003 (HC)

Ali Hasan Vs. State

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Jul-14-2003

Reported in : 2004CriLJ1660

irshad hussani, j.1. appellant ali hasan has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302, ipc per judgment and order dated 23-12-2000 passed by 1st additional sessions judge, haridwar. 2. certain undisputed facts are that deceased smt. sheela was previously married to one dharam singh and two children were also born out of their wedlock. marital relations between them got strained and deceased smt. sheela ceased to reside with her husband for the last about 2 years. smt. sheela developed illicit relations with appellant ali hasan although, she continued to reside with her mother and brother-informant ram chandra (p.w. 3) in the town of jwalapur of district-haridwar. smt. sheela was employed for household work in vadhera nursing home in jwalapur.3. the prosecution case, as emerges out of the fir and the evidence, is that appellant ali hasan wanted that smt. sheela should reside with him as his wife, but she was not agreeing to this proposal. appellant was displeased with her as she refused to reside with him and on many occasions gave her threat of dire consequences. on 19-7-1997 at about 7:30 a.m. appellant made smt. sheela to stop near p.p. motor works-shop while she was going to attend her duties at vadhera nursing-home and took her towards a three-wheeler parked in the back of the works-shop and fired shot from his pistol by placing the weapon on her temple and fled-away from there. when smt. sheela was cornered by the appellant at the place of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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