Chhattisgarh Court January 2002 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.
Rajaram Maize Products Vs. State Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR653]; (2003)ILLJ414CG; 2002(2)MPHT43(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Ag. CJ. Heard.1. This order shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 5026/97,5027/97 and 5028/97.2. These three petitions have been filed by the petitioner/employer against the common order dated 24-11-1997 passed by the Industrial Court, arising out of the orders passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon.3. The Labour Court had dismissed all these petitions holding that they were not the employees of the petitioner and the Industrial Court while setting aside the orders passed by the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employees without backwages.4. Briefly stated the facts for the purpose these petitions are that the employees filed the petitions before the Labour Court on the ground that from 12-2-1996 they had been going to the petitioner's establishment for work but they were not being allowed to work. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner/employer obtained an interim order dated 1-3-1986 prohibiting employees of the petitioner to continue the strike from 1-3-86 ...
Ramhai Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Ag. C.J.1. By the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 17-8-2000 passed by respondent No. 3, Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Officer under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam by which no confidence motion against the petitioner was rescheduled for 27-8-2001. The petitioner further states that though a revision against the aforesaid order wasfiled before the Collector, Korba, but the same having not been considered in time, has become infructuous.2. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pahadgaon. On a no confidence motion moved by few Panchas, the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3 directed the Additional Tehsildar, Karatala, to convene a meeting of Panchas on 8-8-2001 to consider the no confidence motion. However, on the said date, according to the petitioner, for...
Smt. Savitri Bai and anr. Vs. Malinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT30(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Ag. C.J. 1. Heard. 2. The claim petition was filed on the ground that one Kanhaiyalal received fatal injuries and died. The matter remained pending for long. During the pendency, it transpired that the notice was directed to be issued on furnishing fresh Talwana to one Manjeet Singh who was subsequently joined as a party. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the entire claim, which was pending since 1991, without entering into the merits of the case as Talwana could not be paid. He further submits that the dismissal of the claim is not at all justified, as the learned counsel for the Insurance Company was present on the said date and even no fault liability amount has not been paid. Learned counsel also submits that the Claims Tribunals have to dispense with justice keeping in view the salient features of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down by this Court. Regarding Talwana, they have to take into consider...
Smt. Sushila Singh and ors. Vs. Driver Madhulal Rai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT7(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19-12-2001, passed by A.D.J., Durg, whereby application for withdrawal of F.D.R. amount has been rejected.3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased was a Nepali and he died in an accident and the claimants are widow and children. He further submits that the amount is needed for treatment of the child of the deceased, who is seriously ill in Nepal. Her permanent address is Village Paharipur, Post Patharia, Dist. Kelali Sethi Anchal, Nepal. At present she is temporarily staying Bhilai. Counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment reported in 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 357 (Mangibai v. Suresh) and a judgment of this reported in 2001(1) C.G.L.J. (Bharat Ram v. Abdul Murad and Ors.) and submitted the relevant medical documents. Counsel for the applicants submits that he himself is satisfied.4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record, the revision petition i...
Narsingh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC142; 2002(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The revision is heard finally.2. The applicants have filed the present revision against the order dated 6-12-2001 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No. 427/2001 regarding framing of charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 306/34, IPC,3. The prosecution story is that the applicant No. 1 Narsingh was married to Devki Bai. Within a period of seven years of marriage Devki Bai died. After lodgment of report the post mortem was conducted and it was found that the death was respiratory failure due to poisoning. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the applicants.4. Learned Additional District Judge after hearing counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has framed the charges against the applicants.5. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the cognizance has wrongly been taken and according to him offence under Section 498A is punisha...
Sheikh Ismail and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT8(CG)
W.A. Shishak, J. 1. Heard.2. The petitioners are in possession of respective plots of lands and they are running shops for the last about 20 years. It is also stated that earnest money has been deposited in respect of those plots of lands of shops. They are also ready to deposit 2% supervision charges. It is contended that if the respondents calculate the actual amount of 2% supervision charges the petitioners are ready to pay and proceed with construction of their respective shops. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are taking steps to evict. It appears that there is no positive step that has been taken so far to evict the petitioners though an apprehension has been expressed at the bar today. Further, I am of the opinion that if eviction becomes necessary, the respondents can do so only by following procedure laid down in this regard. At the same time, in my view, it is for the respondents to consider if the prayer of the writ petitioners that after 2% ...
Gopal Das Vs. Kasturi Devi Begani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT43(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-6-2001 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent widow filed a petition for eviction of the present applicant from the suit premises under Section 23-A (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground that she is under the special category being a widow as her husband had died in March, 1989, that she has become handicapped and further that she has two sons namely Manoj and Manish and as such it was contended that the accommodation which is a non-residential one is bona fide required for carrying on business.3. The defendant/present applicant denied the need and contended that there was no bona fide requirement. During the pendency of the petition and application for grant of leave to defend was filed. The said application was allowed.4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is illegal and c...
Radhe Hari Singh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 17-3-2001 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, framing charges against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.3. According to the prosecution case, one Upendra along with his brother had gone to Durg for filing tender in the Public Works Department. It is stated that while he along with Gopal, Manish Sillu was coming out, the applicant armed with deadly weapons i.e., Sword, Lathi and Farsa attacked Upendra and Gopal and as a result of which they sustained injuries. Report was lodged. After due investigation, challan was filed.4. Learned Sessions Court after scrutinizing the material on record has framed the charges.5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a simple case under Section 323 of IPC and charges under Sections 147, 148/307 ought not to have been framed.6. Le...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›