HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE
Read 13 LawLens analyses of Uttarakhand High Court judgments published in October 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.
← BACK TO UTTARAKHAND COURT REPORTPERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS
The Family Court, Kotdwar, allowed the respondent-wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner, which operates Raj Medical Store at Main Market, Banbasa, sought relief under Article 226, alleging that a protest outside the store obstructed its operations and seeking protection from unlawful inter...
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner alleged that private respondents had fraudulently entered their names in revenue records and executed a sale deed concerning land claimed by the petitioner’s family. He also alleged threats and physical...
2 MIN READ→
The applicant sought to quash the charge sheet dated 20 August 2016 and the cognizance order dated 4 February 2017 in a case alleging offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.
2 MIN READ→
The Juvenile Justice Board declined the revisionist’s application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, by order dated 03.06.2026.
2 MIN READ→
Petitioner No. 1 was the principal and Petitioner No. 2 the chairman of One Omkar Global Academy.
2 MIN READ→
Yogesh Rathi, an accused in FIR No. 0177 of 2026, sought, among other reliefs, transfer of its investigation, quashing of the FIR, and a magisterial inquiry into alleged custodial torture and illegal detention.
2 MIN READ→
The petitioners sought to participate in the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination–2026, for which the upper age limit was 42 years.
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a Constable (Civil Police), applied for selection for training for promotion to Head Constable under a circular dated 22 January 2021. Clause 9(i) of the circular provided two marks for completing a co...
2 MIN READ→
The applicant, informant in an FIR concerning the murder of his brother, alleged that the investigation was inadequate.
2 MIN READ→
Proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, culminated in an eviction order against the petitioner on 18 December 2025.
2 MIN READ→
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with fines
2 MIN READ→
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, under Sections 302, 436 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering Vimla Devi and setting her house on fire.
2 MIN READ→