Plaintiff Not Required To Pay Court Fee Till Permission To Sue As An Indignant Person Under O.33 R.9 CPC Is Withdrawn: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that unless permission granted to a plaintiff to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn in accordance with Order XXXIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no direction can be issued requiring the plaintiff to deposit court fee merely on the basis of an application seeking such a deposit. Observing that the defendants had not sought withdrawal of...

Summoning Under POCSO Act Impermissible When Allegations In Complaint Are Absent From Pre-Summoning Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act merely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint when such allegations are not supported by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court observed that if the ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the statements of...

Grant Of Higher Pay To Specific Employees By Court Order Doesn't Give Future Appointees Vested Right To Claim Parity: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the grant of a higher Grade Pay to a specific group of employees pursuant to a court judgment does not create a vested or legally enforceable right in favour of future appointees to claim the same benefit. The Court observed that employees appointed after the issuance of a Government Order restricting the benefit to existing employees, cannot seek...

Absconding Accused Declared As 'Proclaimed Offender' Cannot Maintain Quashing Petition Through Power Of Attorney: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender and against whom a lookout circular has been issued cannot maintain a petition under Section 482 CrPC through a power of attorney holder. The Court observed that it would not exercise its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction in favour of an individual who is intentionally evading the process of...

Exoneration From Malpractice In Cancelled Exam Does Not Create Vested Right To Appointment In Subsequent Vacancies: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice in a cancelled recruitment process does not confer a vested right to appointment. The Court observed that while an inquiry report may establish that a candidate was not involved in any irregularity, it neither revives a cancelled recruitment process nor creates a right to seek appointment against...

Railways Cannot Evict Unauthorised Encroachers Through General Notice, Without Due Process Of Law: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that even a person in unlawful possession of railway land cannot be evicted through a general administrative notice without following due process of law. The Court observed that forcible dispossession from property without legal sanction violates constitutional and human rights, and eviction can only be effected by following the procedure established...

Claimant's Guilty Plea To Rash Driving Acts As Admission Of Negligence, Disentitles Him To Accident Compensation: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that where a claimant has pleaded guilty in a criminal case arising out of a motor accident, such a plea amounts to an admission that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The Court observed that while the effect of a finding recorded in a criminal case may stand on a different footing, a voluntary plea of guilt by the claimant...

Printing "Maha Value" On Pepsi Bottles Not 'Misbranding' Under Food Safety Act Unless Proven To Be Misleading: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that merely printing the phrase "Maha Value" on a food packet does not amount to misbranding under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 unless it is established that the statement is false, misleading or deceptive. The Court observed that it is for the prosecution to prove how the impugned expression misleads consumers and a finding of misbranding...

Authority Determining Compensation Under NH Act Cannot Question Correctness Of Circle Rate Fixed By Collector: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the authority determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot examine the correctness of the circle rate fixed by the Collector under the stamp law framework. The Court observed that once the applicable circle rate is available for the purpose of Section 26(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land...

Speedy Justice Requires Stakeholders To Act With Due Diligence: Uttarakhand High Court Directs State To Assist Trial Courts In Long-Pending Trials

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to a murder accused who had remained in judicial custody since 13.07.2016, reiterating that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner without likelihood of early conclusion of trial cannot be countenanced indefinitely.Importantly, the Court...

Election Petition Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Merely Because Accompanying Affidavit Is Defective: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not mandatory and that it is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. Further, reiterating the principle established in various precedents, the Court held that a defect, if any in the affidavit filed with the election...

Fair Price Shop Licence Cancellation Order Not Signed By District Magistrate Is Invalid: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an order cancelling a fair price shop licence is unsustainable in law if it is not signed by the District Magistrate, who alone is competent to pass such an order under the applicable Government Order. The Court observed that an unsigned order cannot be treated as a valid order of the District Magistrate merely because it was communicated to the...