Chhattisgarh Court October 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Shail Devi Saraf Vs. Smt. Janakibai Gupta
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT52(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed suit for eviction against the non applicant/defendant. In the said suit, Mukhtyarnama executed by the applicant in favour of her husband was sought to be brought on record, but by impugned order dated 6-2-2001, the said prayer has been rejected. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court praying that she is a Parda Nashin lady and she generally remains sick, as such her husband Shankar Lal be permitted to act, appear and plead on her behalf in the suit. The said prayer was objected by the defendant on the ground that she is neither Parda Nashin lady nor is sick.2. The learned trial Judge rejected the said prayer of the applicant on the ground that the suit has been filed by her and Mukhtyarnama contained the photograph and as such she does not appear to be a Parda Nashin lady. It is also mentioned that the material regarding her sickness has not been produced and as such the application for ...
Khom Prasad Sharma Vs. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT50(CG)
ORDERW.A. Shishak, C.J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's society, namely Kuber Grih Nirman Cooperative Society, was superseded by an order issued on 9-3-2001 by the Deputy Registrar. The said order has been impugned in the present petition mainly on the ground that the order of supersession is not sustainable because clearly there were six members out of eleven Board Members at the time the order of supersession was issued.3. Rule 43, Sub-rule 6 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962, states: '6. The quorum for the meeting of the committee shall be as provided in the bye-laws but in any case it shall be more than 50% of the total number of the members'.Of the total number of eleven Board members, six members would form the quorum. It is contended that at the time of the order of supersession, four members had resigned. Another member had also been removed from membership. It may be stated that subsequently, the order of removal was set aside but that took plac...
Lokesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Ispat Karmachari Co-operative Credit Society Ltd ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT49(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Present petitioner Lokesh Kumar Sahu filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court inter alia submitting that he was an elected President of the Board of Directors and in the meeting convened he was resolved to be illegally removed, therefore the resolution be quashed, annulled or set aside and the status of the present petitioner be declared. Along with the dispute the applicant/petitioner filed an application seeking grant of ad interim injunction. The said application was ex parte granted by the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Durg. It is however to be noted that the respondents K.K. Rao, Avdesh Kumar Yadev, C.S. Pasene, R.P. Rao and S.P. Rajak took up the matter before the Co-operative Tribunal. In the revision certain new facts were incorporated and certain new evidence was annexed. After hearing the parties, learned Co-operative Tribunal granted revision, set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Registrar and rejected the petitioner's application. B...
Ram Dhan Khandelwal Vs. Manish Chouhan and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT83(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 13-7-2001 passed by the J.M.F.C., Durg, in Criminal Case No. 72/1996 whereby the Court has dismissed the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint is pending before the Court and the complainant and the accused persons were appearing. Certain objections were raised regarding limitations etc. by the accused. The learned Magistrate rejected those objections and held that the complaint is within limitation. The case was adjourned.2. According to the complainant the case was fixed on 6-10-1998, but the counsel for the complainant/applicant has wrongly noted the date as 7-10-1998. When complainant appeared before the Court, he came to know that his complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed in default. Thereafter, the complainant has filed an application for restoration, the said application was rejected.3. The learned Trial Court has...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›