advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Uttarakhand
Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly = Yogendra Singh Tomar … Appellant Versus Bar Council for Uttarakhand and others …Respondents= Published in /Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41099
Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly = Thereafter, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that … Continue reading
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
Stamp duty and penalty = Whether the sale deed executed by Aditya Mills Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1 could be treated as lease deed for the purpose of stamp duty is the question = unable to do so because neither party has placed on record copy of deed dated 29.9.1978 and without examining that document, it is not possible for us to record a firm finding about the nature and character of deed dated 3.5.1995. In this scenario, the only appropriate course is to remit the case to the Collector for fresh determination of the issue relating to valuation of the building and the land purchased by respondent No.1. Ordered accordingly.= The appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Collector shall call upon respondent No.1 to produce deed dated 29.9.1978, to which reference has been made in the deed executed in its favour by Aditya Mills Ltd. and then decide whether it is a lease deed simpliciter or a sale deed for the purpose of stamp duty. While disposing of the appeal, we consider it necessary to make it clear that if the Collector comes to the conclusion that the deed executed by Aditya Mills Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1 is a lease deed then the latter shall have to surrender the land to the Government of India on 9.3.2021, i.e., the date on which term of the lease would expire.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40595 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6086 OF 2013. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3749 of 2012) State of U.P. now Uttarakhand and another …Appellants Versus Vinit Traders and Investment Ltd. and another …Respondents O R D E R Leave granted. Whether the … Continue reading
Upgrade to Municipal corporation = Section 8-AA(1) of the Act -under Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) as applicable in Uttarakhand read with Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution = Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand has provided an opportunity of hearing to the objectors on their respective objections on 16.07.2011 from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. at Kumbh Fair Controlling House, Haridwar and amongst the objectors there were several Municipal Councilors of Haridwar Municipality, namely Dinesh Joshi, Rakesh Prajapati, Yashoda Devi, Leela Devi, Ashok Sharma, Jagdhir Singh, Nikhil Mehta, Idris Ansari, Satya Narayan, Karuna Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Radhey Krishna, Prabha Ghai and Ram Ahuja. Hence, the appellant, who was the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Haridwar could have also participated in the hearing in support of his objections. We cannot, therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that an opportunity of hearing was actually given to all persons likely to be affected by the two notifications dated 21.07.2011. 13. At the time of hearing of this appeal, we were inclined to consider the other contention of Mr. Hansaria that the State Government must form an opinion that until the due constitution of the Municipal Corporation for an area, “it is expedient” to dissolve the Municipal Council from a specified date and to direct that all powers, functions and duties of the Corporation shall as from the specified date, be vested in and be exercised, performed and discharged by the Administrator appointed by the State Government in view of the language of sub-section (1) of Section 8-AA of the Act. But we find that this ground was not raised in the Writ Petition before the High Court nor raised in the special leave petition before this Court. We further find that pursuant to the two notifications dated 21.07.2011, the elections to the Municipal Corporation have been notified to be held and completed by 30.04.2013. Hence, even if the appellant succeeds on this point, we cannot direct restoration of the Haridwar Municipality after the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar. For these reasons, we refrain from considering this question in this appeal and leave this question open to be decided in some other appropriate case.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40467 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 4835 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1889 of 2012) Kamal Jora … Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading
The Public Service Commission Uttaranchal issued an advertisement dated February 26, 2006 for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Doctor in the department of Animal Husbandry. One of the conditions essential for making an application was that the applicant should be duly registered with Uttaranchal Veterinary Council. 3. The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006. The High Court passed a very= “….This is in breach of constitutional mandate contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the event registration as a Veterinary Surgeon is considered to be the minimum eligible qualification, henceforth the State Government would ensure that persons registered as Veterinary Surgeons are entitled to respond to advertisements for recruitment of Veterinary Surgeons and shall not insist for the candidates to be registered as Veterinary Surgeons of the State of Uttarakhand.”- We are of the view that the issue before the High Court was quite serious and merited consideration in greater detail. We are unable to sustain the very brief order passed by the High Court on this serious issue. We, accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court to hear the parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration not only the provisions of the Constitution but also the relevant statutory provisions. 5. Needless to say that since the order of the High Court is set aside, it will be open to the State Public Service Commission to adhere to the previous terms as long as the High Court does not take a contrary view in the matter. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.17295 OF 2011] State of Uttarakhand through Secretary … Appellant Versus Kumari Amita Singh & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The … Continue reading
absence of valid sanction from the competent authority,= Accordingly, the High Court quashed the prosecution of the accused being without valid sanction and, while doing so, observed that the State Government of Uttarakhand shall be at liberty to prosecute the accused after obtaining valid sanction from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.- It was contended before the High Court that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, the State Government of Uttarakhand is not competent to grant sanction. This submission found favour with the High Court. The High Court held that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and having been repatriated to his parent department, it is the State Government of the Uttar Pradesh which is competent to remove him and to grant necessary sanction. “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-……….. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c)in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” We are told by Ms. Srivastava that the request of the State Government of Uttarakhand for sanction of prosecution of the accused is still pending before the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, we deem it expedient that the latter takes decision on the request so made, if already not taken, within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion in regard to the merit of the request made by the State Government of Uttarakhand and it shall be decided by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh on its own merit in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action forthwith. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with the aforesaid observation.
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2013 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1593 of 2007) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … APPELLANT VERSUS YOGENDRA NATH ARORA …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. Yogendra Nath Arora (hereinafter referred to as … Continue reading
The essence of sale is the transfer of the property in a thing from one person to another for a price. As per Section 4, the contract of sale includes an agreement to sell. It is not necessary that contract of sale must be absolute. It may be conditional as well. The essential feature that distinguishes the contract of sale from an agreement to sell is that in a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer immediately whereas in an agreement to sell property is transferred on a future date/dates. An agreement to sell becomes a sale on fulfillment of the conditions or when the time provided in the agreement elapses.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5876 OF 2009 State of Uttaranchal (now known as State of Uttarakhand) & Ors. …… Appellants Vs. M/s. Khurana Brothers …… Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5878 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5880 OF 2009 JUDGMENT … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 