Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Jyoti Bai Nagesh and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR152]; 2002(3)MPHT47(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. It is submitted that on 12-3-2002 a cheque of Bank of Maharashtra has been issued for an amount of Rs. 1,03,609/-. The petitioners have to open an account in the Bank; however there shall be no difficulty in opening the account, the Bank will co-operate. Counsel for the petitioner submits thatamount is still outstanding and full amount has not been paid. The affidavit has not been filed. Copy of the receipt is shown to the Court. It be filed with list of documents and copy be supplied to the Counsel for the petitioner and State.3. The position, which emerges, is that Radha Bai who was working as Sweeper in the Municipal Corporation, Durg died on 20-10-2000, leaving behind her daughter Jyoti Bai and son Lakshman. Lakshman, however died leaving behind widow Rajni Bai. The petitioners were directed to apply for succession certificate. The succession certificate was granted on 3-10-2001 and thereafter request was made to release the dues of Radha Bai. Learned...
Chandrakumar Gendele and ors. Vs. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalay, Bilasp ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR964]; 2002(2)MPHT77(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. This order shall dispose of W.P, Nos. 232/2002, 233/2002 and 234/2002.2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 21-1-2002 whereby his services have been terminated by the Registrar of the University as per the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor passed the order on 20-1-2002 and as such their services are terminated with immediate effect.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that names were called from the employment exchange as well as from the employees of the University. The petitioners were also called for written test and interview. The petitioners were duly selected and were appointed vide order dated 24-12-2001. They gave their joining report on 15-1-2002 and thereafter their services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 21-1-2002. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, before passing ...
Sobran Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT32(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 5-1-2001 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No, 418/2000 (State v. Laxmi Bai and Ors). 3. This petition has been filed by the father-cum-natural guardian of petitioner. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is mentally retarded and at the instance of the co-accused one Smt. Lakshmi Bai who is said to be guardian of Ms. Santoshi Bai, the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Santoshi Bai according to the customs. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has kidnapped Santoshi Bai (wife). The petitioner has been taken into custody and he is said to be in jail since 15-9-2000. 4. As directed, report of the Medical Officer Central Jail Hospital has been received which shows that the petitioner was admitted in Hospital since 3-1 -2002 and during this period the conduct o...
Dr. Rajendra Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT58(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the allotment order dated 5-8-1994 (Annexure P-l) issued in favour of respondent No. 6 and the impugned order of advance possession dated 22-8-1994 (Annexure P-2J. It is further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be directed to issue allotment order with delivery of possession in respect of plot in dispute, in favour of the present petitioner.2. Petitioner submits that he is the Secretary of Yug Chetna Publication, Raipur which is the Unit of Yug Dharma and applied for allotment of land (Annexure P-3) admeasuring 417138 sq. ft. situated at Block No. 9, plot No. 1 x 1 at Rajbandha Talab, Civil Station, Raipur. It is submitted that there was Press Complex categorized by the State Government and the Local Authority and various parts thereof have been allotted to different pressmen. It is submitted that on receipt of the application in the office of respo...
Arif HussaIn Siddiqui Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT53(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 7-Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, dated 14-2-2000 (Annexure P-6) and that of Chief Municipal Officer-respondent No. 4, Nagar Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, Dist. Raigarh (Annexure P-7).2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 18-3-1999 as per Annexure P-3 on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-Ill, Purva Madhyamik Shala, Bazaarpara, Dharamjaigarh. He joined the said post immediately thereafter and was serving.3. It is submitted that one Saiyacharan Sarkar, respondent No. 9 filed an appeal under Section 91 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam before the Commissioner, Bilaspur against the order dated 25-8-1999 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Raigarh-respondent No. 5. By this order Annexure P-5, an order was passed whereby the appointment of respondent No: 9 was cancelled on th...
Ramesh Kumar JaIn Vs. President, Devanand JaIn Higher Secondary School ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR375]; 2002(2)MPHT41(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services have been terminated and the departmental appeal dated 6-10-2000 (Annexure P-3) is pending with the Director/respondent No. 2, which has not been disposed of in spite of the representations made, Annexures P-1 and P-5.3. It is pointed out that the appeal ought to have been decided as early as possible and no reason is there for not deciding the same.4. A Statute provides appeal as alternative efficatious remedy and the appellate authority also being there the appeal preferred must be decided as early as possible so as to make the provision of appeal effective, yet it remains pending for years which is not at all the Healthy Practice. The State is obliged to see that the authorities enjoined with power to hear and decide the appeal must find out time and should see that the matter is decided expeditiously especially where the services of an earning member are terminated. The delay defeats the very objec...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›