Chhattisgarh Court September 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.
Raj Kumar College Society and anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT12(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 6-5-2000. (Annexure P-19) passed by the Ministry of Urban Administration and Development Department, cancelling the building permission No. 398, dated 27-6-98. On the ground that the order passed by the State Government is contrary to law and is also bad on the factual foundation. The order Annexure P-19 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of Powers under Section 299-A of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner No. 1 Raj Kumar College as alleged was founded at Jabalpur in 1882 and was later on shifted to Raipur at its present site in 1894. By a registered indenture of lease dated 24-10-1964, the State Government leased out an area admeasuring 54,06,612 Sq. Ft. of nazul land situated at West Civil Station, G.E. Roa...
Ghurava Bai Vs. Vishnuram
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC324
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The applicant-wife being unsuccessful before the two Courts has come to this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. making a complaint that the two Courts did not appreciate the law properly, erred in not appreciating that the delay in making the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. would not defeat the justice for would frustrate the right which the law confers on destitute wife.2. The applicant-wife made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Section 125, Cr. P.C. inter alia pleading that the applicant was legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, out of the wed-lock the parties were blessed with a child who was about 20 years of age on the date of maintenance application, the husband was ill-treating the wife and had also developed illicit relationship with one Sukwaro Bai. The applicant when raised objection, she was beaten and was turned out of the house. She also pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself; she had become very weak...
Haricharan Ramteke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT47(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Heard. Case-diary perused.2. M.Cr.C. No. 1226 of 2001 so also M.Cr.C. No. 2187 of 2001 have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that from the first date of recording the evidence of the prosecution more than 60 days have passed but till date the trial is not completed and is the accused had remained in jail for that entire period of 60 days and more they deserve to be released on bail.3. Learned counsel for the applicants placing their strong reliance on the language of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. submit that an accused is entitled to be released on bail unless the Court records reasons in writing that he is not entitled to be released on bail. They submit that the prosecution agency could not keep their witnesses in attendance and the Court taking a very platonic and in human approach in the matter is adjourning the case unnecessarily. They submit that the applicants are in jail for almost more than one year, therefore, at this stage they deserve ...
Tej Kumar Sahu Vs. Padum Lochan and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC264
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. Parties are heard.After an order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was passed against the applicant awarding maintenance in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, the said order was put into execution by the guardian. It appears that during the recovery proceedings certain disputes arose and the Court directed return of certain amounts in favour of the present applicant which was paid in excess by him. Later on the non-applicant No. 2 in her capacity as guardian of non-applicant No. 1 made an application for recovery of the amount under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was opposed by the applicant again raising the plea that the non-applicant No. 1 was not his child.. The Trial Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that the Executing Court could not go behind the original order. It allowed the application and directed the recovery of the amount.2. Before the Revisional Court the applicant raised an objection inter-alia pleading ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›