//
archives

Dehradun

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Whether she cannot take benefit of reservation in the State of Uttarakhand because she is a Scheduled Caste (Valmiki of Punjab). =She was provisionally selected but her candidature was cancelled by the Commission vide Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2005 on the ground that she cannot take benefit of reservation in the State of Uttarakhand because she is a Scheduled Caste (Valmiki of Punjab).- The Division Bench held that after migration from Punjab, the appellant cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand and she is not entitled to be appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste.= Whether Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? – whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State. 16. Since the other related matter has been referred to a larger Bench, we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also to the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly. 17. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate order.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40822 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8225 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33724 of 2011) Ranjana Kumari … Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has questioned correctness of … Continue reading

the High Court allowed the Government Appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, and finding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code and gave him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. = tried to conceal the relationship between him and the deceased.= “Bhabhi” is a common form of address for the wife of someone who is known from before.; Coming now to Ex.Ka-10, it needs to be noted that that was an application for leave of absence given where he was working. It is a common failing to try to justify the unsanctioned absence from work by making out excuses and by taking some liberty with actual facts. Therefore, in his application for condoning the absence for four days, if he said that his cousin had met with a tragic accident, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was actually his cousin and in court he was trying to conceal the relationship. ; The Investigating Officer (PW.11) stated that he arrested the appellant at 8.00 p.m. on July 28, 1988. In course of interrogation he volunteered to produce the scissors used for killing the deceased from his shop. He took the Investigating Officer to his shop, opened it with the keys kept in his pocket and recovered the blood stained scissors from under the shop counter and produced it before the Investigating Officer. 35. PW.6 stated that on July 28, 1988, while he was going to the house of the deceased, he met the police people in Indira colony (the place where the occurrence took place). The appellant was also with them. The police people brought the appellant to his shop and got it opened and on the asking of the Daroga, the appellant picked up a pair of scissors from the counter of his shop and handed it to the police. A recovery memo was prepared and the signatures of the witness and one Bhim Singh were taken on the recovery On a careful consideration of the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the State, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly rejected the view taken by the trial court as wholly untenable and has rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3 in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 37. In the light of the discussion above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2008 Rajendra Singh … Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal … Respondent J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 30, 2008 passed by the Uttarakhand … Continue reading

UNDER QUALITY IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION =the photographs produced by the complainant are sufficient to establish that the quality of the construction work is very poor. The technical report of the architect cannot be ignored on the ground that these are the words of the complainant. The report along with the photographs is sufficient to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, causing loss to the complainant. The plea that the opposite party had done the work as per the directions of Shri P. S. Raizada and Shri Pandey, the representatives of the complainant, is also not acceptable because these persons were authorised by the complainant for making timely payment to the opposite party, so that the work may not be stopped for want of funds. Nowhere in the agreement is it stated that these persons would also verify the quality of work. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

        NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITIONS NO. 3643-3644 OF 2011 (From the order dated 22.03.2011 of Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009)   Shambhu Paswan 215, Chandreshwar Nagar Hrishikesh                                                                         Petitioner District Dehradun Uttarakhand   versus   Shri Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin MIG – 61, Hrishikesh Colony Hrishikesh, District Dehradun                                             Respondent Uttarakhand   … Continue reading

Arbitration Act, 1940-Sections 20 and 39(iv)-Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Sections 21 and 85(2)(a)-Application for appointment of arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause in case of dispute between parties-Trial Court holding that firm being unregistered as such application not maintainable even though applicant firm filed amendment application with regard to the same-High Court holding that since 1996 Act has come into force parties to relegate under the new Act-On appeal held : Since the arbitral proceedings commenced before coming into force of the 1996 Act, provisions of 1940 Act applicable and matter remitted to High Court-Furthermore firm must be registered at the time of the institution of the suit and not later-Also, the High Court is to consider the correctness of the order passed by trial court-Partnership Act, 1932- Section 69. Appellant-State Sugar Corporation and respondent-construction company entered into a contract. Dispute arose between the parties but the appellant did not appoint any arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the contract. Respondent filed application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Civil Judge held it to be not maintainable as the respondent firm was not registered even though the respondent had admitted that it failed to make necessary averment in the plaint as regard registration of the firm inadvertently and had filed an application for amendment of the petition. Respondent then filed an appeal. High Court allowed the appeal directing that since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has come into force, parties are to relegate under the new Act Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State Sugar Corporation contended the application for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable under the 1940 Act and the 1996 Act as the respondent firm was not registered; and that in any event, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law as the arbitral proceeding was initiated prior to coming into force of the 1996 Act. Respondent-firm contended that in a similar matter this Court directed the trial court to appoint an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause of the contract between the parties, on remitting the matter, and as such there being a similar stipulation in the instant case, it must be acted upon. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. In the event it is found by the High Court that the Civil Judge was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and in fact the respondent-firm was registered under the Partnership Act, the question of throwing out the said suit on that ground would not arise. High Court would consider these questions. Further, it is true that the arbitral proceedings would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having regard to the mandatory provisions contained in Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The firm must be registered at the time of institution of the suit and not later. [830-F-G] Delhi Development Authority v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr., [1998] 8 SCC 559, relied on. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd., AIR (1964) SC 1882 and Firm Ashok Traders and Anr. v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and Ors., [2004] 3 SCC 155, referred to. 1.2. Disputes and differences between the parties arose in the year 1991 and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the same year. It invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement. The arbitral proceeding was set in motion. In terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commences on a date on which the request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration was received by the respondent. Therefore, in respect of the arbitral proceedings commenced before coming into force of the 1996 Act, the provisions of the 1940 Act would apply. Hence, the matter is remitted to High Court for afresh consideration. [831-A-B; 832-A-B] Milkfood Ltd. v. M/s. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd., JT (2004) 4 SC 393, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5479 of 2004. =2004 AIR 4335, 2004(3 )Suppl.SCR826 , 2004(7 )SCC332 , 2004(7 )SCALE307 , 2004(7 )JT61

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5479 of 2004 PETITIONER: U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. RESPONDENT: Jain Construction Co. & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2004 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4459 of 2004) S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. This appeal … Continue reading

Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(5)-Appointment of arbitrator-Application by the legal heir of the deceased partner-Held, maintainable. Indian Partnership Act, 1932; Section 46-Rendition of accounts-Legal representative of a deceased partner-Right to sue-Held, survives on the legal representative. The Short questions involved in the appeals were: (a) Where right to sue for rendition of accounts survives on the legal representative of a deceased partner, are the legal representative not entitled to invoke arbitration clause contained in the Partnership Deed? (b) Whether the arbitration can be commenced by the heirs after the death of partner especially where the dispute had arisen during the life time of the partner? (c) Whether in view of section 46 read with section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as well as section 40 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The legal representative of the deceased partner is entitled to claim appointment of arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the Partnership Deed? =2007 AIR 1517, 2007(4 )SCR295 , , 2007(4 )SCALE562 , 2007(4 )JT523

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1526 of 2007 PETITIONER: Ravi Prakash Goel RESPONDENT: Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2007 BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of SLP (C) NO. 6723 OF 2006) Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted. The above appeal … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com