Chhattisgarh Court November 2000 Judgments
Smt. Indrani Shrivastava Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT21(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.1. Parties are heard.2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order Annexure P-9 dated 5-7-2000.3. The short facts are that the petitioner's vehicle Maruti Van No. MP-26C/5407 was seized by the Forest Authorities in relation to P.O.R. No. 3772, finding that it was engaged in illegal transportation of timber. The petitioner made an application for interim custody of the vehicle, but the same has been rejected by the competent authority/Dy. Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur.4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the vehicle is rusting and rotting in the custody of the forest officer and the same is not being looked after properly. At the time of culmination of the proceedings in favour of the petitioner, in place of vehicle he would besupplied some junk and in case order for confiscation is passed, the State would be lef...
Tag this Judgment!Asim Saha Vs. Collector, Kanker and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT6(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J. 1. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 25-5-2000 passed in Case No. 2/A-89A (4)/99-2000 granting election petition of the respondent No. 5 and directing recount of the votes.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as an application for recount was not made to the returning officer immediately after declaration of the results, the Tribunal could not accept the plea and direct recount. It is further submitted that the Court/Tribunal has acted contrary to law by issuing a direction to the Returning Officer to recount the votes in the entirety. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, when the election petition is allowed by the Tribunal, then the Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to direct recount and it is bound to recount the votes itself.3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, submits that ...
Tag this Judgment!Dum Ram and Another Vs. Bhanwar Lal and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT3(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.1. By this petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitionerseeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 4-1-99, passed in Civil Suit No. 20-A/92 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and refusing to grant permission to prove the document dated 16-5-66 by leading secondary evidence.2. The facts in nutshell are that non-applicant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal filed Civil Suit before the trial Court inter-alia pleading that the property in dispute, which is in possession of the present applicants, belongs to him and he is entitled to declaration that the sale-deed executed by Haldhar/defendant No. 3/ Non-applicant does not bind him.3. Present applicants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the property was purchased by them from Haldhar and as such the plaintiff Bhanwar Lal has no right, title or interest in the property. Haldhar-d...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Alias Oman Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT25(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag.C.J.1. Heard.2. Diary of Crime No. 109/2000 registered at Police Station, Gurur (Durg) for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450, IPC perused.3. The prosecution allegations are that the applicant allured and seduced a girl, who was below 15 years after assuring her of marriage and as the girl was below 16 years of age, the applicant is answerable to the charge.4. From the records, it clearly appears that the girl was a consenting party and there is a serious dispute about her age. The prosecution says that the date of birth of the girl is 2-2-85 while from the order of the Court below, it appears that the date of birth as per Kotwar pustak is 7-1-84.5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration, the nature of allegations and conduct of the prosccutrix, I consider present to be a fit case for admitting the applicant to bail.6. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhagwan Katariya and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT20(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.1. This order shall dispose of M. Cr. C. No. 7340/2000 filed by Navneet Kumar and Sandeep, which is a second application under Section 439, Cr.PC. This order shall also dispose of M. Cr. C. No. 6993/2000, which is also an application under Section 439, Cr.PC, this is also a second application.2. Parties are heard.3. Case diary of Crime No. 13/2000 registered at Mahila Police Station, Durg for offences punishable under Section 498A/34 read with Section 313, IPC perused.4. The prosecution allegations have already been given in detail in my earlier order dated 11-7-2000 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 3989/2000.5. The necessary facts for disposal of these petitions are that Smt. Anita was married to Navneet. Applicants Sandeep and Sanjay are younger brothers of said Navneet while Bhagwan Katariya is the father of said Navneet. After the complainant conceived pregnancy, as the allegations are, the busband and the other family members took an exception to it, took her for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Phaguram Sahu Vs. Pyaribai and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT9(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg Ag. C.J. 1. By this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant/plaintiff seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 20-10-97 passed in Civil Suit No. 160-A/97 by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur, refusing to accept the applicant's application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissing the suit as abated.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the defendant Malikram died on 19-3-96 but no information was given by the counsel appearing for the said Malikram either to the Court or to the counsel for the plaintiff. Therefore, up to 21 -8-96 the applicant/plaintiff did not make any application for substitution of the legal representatives of Malikram. It is worth noting that between 19-3-96 to 21-8-96 the counsel for the said Malikram appeared on as many as three occasions. On 21-8-96 counsel for the said Malikram declared in the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Patwa and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J. 1. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9-12-1996 delivered in Session Trial No. 133/1991 by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur convicting each of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment, the appellants have filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief is, that on the fateful day when P.W. 3 Durgaprasad was standing in a cement shop and was talking to one Ravindra Kumar Acharya, the appellants Rajesh and Sadashiv came to him and invited him to go for a Betel. The complainant relying upon them went to a little distance, but, all of a sudden these two persons wilh three unknown persons apprehended him and started causing injuries to him by means of knife/sharp cutting weapon. When the complainant Durgaprasad raised alarm, all the...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Ram Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT113(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction and the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Trial No. 295/90 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur dated 4-12-99 convicting the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for five years.2. The prosecution case in brief is that due to old enmity between original complainant Ram Manik (P.W. 5) and the present appellant Bharat Ram, the present appellant after accosting him caused injuries by means ofTabbal on 12-6-91 at about 11 p.m. The matter was reported to the police fay P.W. 4 Sukh Saran Singh on 13-6-91 at about 2.30 p.m. and Crime No. 398/91 was registered against the present appellant.3. After registering the report, the police took cognizance of the matter, referred the victim/injured to the hospital where his injuries were examined, repaired and he was provided the medical assistance. The weapon of offence, as alleged, was discovered at the instance of the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Bodh Singh Thakur Vs. State and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR420]; (2001)IILLJ675CG; 2001(1)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the directions issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the interest of the petitioner in not permitting him to undergo the training for joining the services.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner claiming to be an oustee of the land applied for an appointment to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who in their turn issued an appointment order and permitted the petitioner to proceed on training. According to the petitioner after some time he was orally asked to quit the training and go back. The petitioner says and submits that he does not know as to what happened and for what reason he was removed.3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 placing their reliance upon the order of appointment submit that after the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, it came to their knowl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›