Uttarakhand High Court Annual Digest 2025

NOMINAL INDEXWelham Boys' School Society & others Versus State of Uttarakhand & another 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 1Javed Siddiqui and another Versus State of Uttarakhand and another 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 2Bindiya Khatri and others. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 3M/s SPDD VDPPL JV and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 4Madhuri Joshi vs. Shashank Balooni 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 5M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Union of India and Another 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 6M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 8Riyaz vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 9Suchit Narang vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 10Vinay Sharma vs. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay and connected petition 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 11Akash Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 12Rajendra Singh Chauhan vs. State Election Commission and Others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 14Dinesh Chandra Kandpal v. State of Uttarakhand & another 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 15Harish Kumar Prajapati vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun and connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 16Pushpa Negi vs State of Uttarakhand and others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 17Birendra Singh Nabiyal and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 18Madarsa Inamul Ulum Society v. State of Uttarakhand & Others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 19Tarkendra Vaishnav and another vs State of Uttarakhand and another 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 20Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 21Mahant Sukdev Muni vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 22Uttarakhand High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Residential Schools To Only Charge Tuition Fees During COVID-19 Lockdown Case Title: Welham Boys' School Society & others Versus State of Uttarakhand & another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 1 Reiterating that commercialization and profiteering in education are impermissible, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the State Government's 2021 orders regulating fees of private unaided residential schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, directing the institutions to charge only tuition fees. “In view of the emergent situation, which had arisen due to Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown-imposed consequent thereto, State Government was justified in issuing necessary directions to the private unaided residential schools not to charge fee for services, which were not availed of by the students during the period when the school/ hostel were closed and classes were conducted online,”, the division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit said. S.43D(2)(b) UAPA | Slow Progress In Initial 90 Days Bars Extension Of Investigation Period, Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Uttarakhand HC Case Title: Javed Siddiqui and another Versus State of Uttarakhand and another, Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2024 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (2) UTT The Uttarakhand High Court granted default bail to two UAPA accused, for their alleged involvement in the violence and resistance during a demolition drive in Banbhoolpura, Nainital. The Court noted that failure of the investigative agency to record substantial progress in the initial 90 days of investigation (in a UAPA case) wouldn't entitle the investigating agency to seek an extension of accused custody beyond 90 days, and the accused would be entitled to seek a default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. “The right to life and liberty is one of the integral parts of the Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right. The custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation, it (the enactments) cannot allow the appellants to remain under incarceration.”, the court said. 'Admitted Student Can't Be Asked To Pay Revised Fees During Ongoing Course', Uttarakhand HC Quashes Retrospective Fee Hike In Ayurveda Colleges Case Title: Bindiya Khatri and others. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (3) UTT Providing relief to students of B.A.M.S. courses from various Ayurvedic colleges of the State, the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the decision to extend the revised increased tuition fees in the year 2019 to the admission took place in the preceding years. Also, the Court said that the student is liable to pay the fees prevalent at the time of admission, and the fees cannot be revised unless the student completes the course. Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court Case Title: M/s SPDD VDPPL JV and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (4) UTT The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable. Uttarakhand HC Permits US-Based Wife To Record Evidence Via Video Conferencing In Matrimonial Dispute, Stresses Effective Use Of VC Rules Case title - Madhuri Joshi vs. Shashank...

Uttarakhand High Court Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags