Chhattisgarh Court April 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.
State of Chhattisgarh and ors. Vs. Iqbal Khan and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT58(CG)
ORDER1. Heard.2. The State has preferred this petition against the order dated 9-7-2001 passed in O.A. No. 1072/2000 by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the services of respondent No. 1 from the date of dismissal and pay the entire arrears of the salary from the date of dismissal.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2-11-1996 respondent No. 1 had tried to outrage the modesty of one Devki Bai, sister of Constable Prem Singh. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Durg on the same day. A criminal case bearing No. 74/1999 was registered against the respondent No. 1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 443 & 354 of IPC but the charge under Section 354, IPC was framed against the respondent No. 1 by the Competent Court and ultimately after trial, the respondent No. 1 was acquit...
Sainath Singh Vs. Bhagwat Prasad and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERHon'ble Judges: Fakhruddin, J.1. The petitioner had filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur on the ground that in booth No. 59 of Gram Panchayat, Kunwarpur wrong counting has been made. Prayer clause of the said petition is also to the effect for recounting of votes of booth No. 59. Another prayer was that the election, whereby the respondent No. 1 has been declared elected, be declared void.2. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 8-8-2000 has allowed the petition to the extent that the recounting of votes of booth No. 59 be made. Even on the recounting of votes, the petitioner could not succeed.3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that recounting in other booth Nos. 58 and 60 of Gram Panchayat, Kunwarpur be made.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that this was not the prayer before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Even no such averment was made in the said petition.5. Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panc...
Mahendra Kumar Saluja and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT23(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Ritu, daughter of petitioner No. 1 and sister of petitioner No. 2 died on 26-10-2001 under suspicious circumstances, A report has been lodged to the police but due toinaction on the part of the police officers the investigation has not yet been completed and the culprits are enjoying liberty,2. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that a perusal of the diary shows that from January, 2002 to March, 2002 investigation was practically not done at all. The Station House Officer present in the Court was questioned about it. He submitted that earlier Shri P.C. Sonker was the S.H.O. posted at Kotwali, Korba. He submits that it is for him to explain. So far as he is concerned, he has taken the charge on 8-3-2002 and he also has not been able to look in this case.3. The alleged offence against the applicant is regarding killing of his own wife. It is stated that on 26-10-2001 at about 9.15 a.m. the information was rece...
Smt. Indira Surmani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT7(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title. 'Gram Panchayat Ukhra' be mentioned before the name of Sarpanch, and Collector, Mahasamund be joined as respondent No. 5. 3. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 4. The petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary (Panchayat Karmi) by the Gram Panchayat. She preferred a petition before the Collector, Mahasamund that was registered as Case No. 133/2000-2001: On 22-9-2001 the Collector passed an interim order (Annexure P-8) and stayed the operationof the order of removal dated 15-6-2001 (para 3 of the order). The said stay order was communicated on 25-9-2001 by the Deputy Collector, Mahasamund vide Annexure P-9. The respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat Ukhra preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Raipur Division. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 15-10-2001 (Annexure P-1) has set-aside the order dated 25-9-2001, which is a communication made...
Ku. Khushbu Bagdi and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners Ku. Khushbu Bagdi, Ku. Sruti Khandelwal, Gaurav Ahluwalia and Piyush Birla have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction, commanding the respondents for holding joint Entrance Examination (Pre-Medical Test) for the successful candidates of Class XIIth from the examinations conducted by Chhattisgarh Board of Higher Secondary Education, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and Indian School Certificate Examination (ISC) for admission in medical colleges including veterinary and dental colleges in the State from the current academic session 2002 onwards.2. While giving their own details the petitioners have submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is a student of Class XII of Holy Cross Higher Secondary School, Pension Bada at Raipur and she claims that she has a good academicrecord and expects to pass the Class XIIth Board Examination to be conducted by the Chhattisga...
Sudarshan Vs. Panchram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT51(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. 1. Heard.2. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 5-A/2001 against the non-applicants for declaration, partition and possession of the suit property. The applicant claimed remission of the Court fee of Rs. 18,320/- under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. The Court below rejected his request on 5-9-2001 and directed him to pay the Court Fee of Rs. 18,320/- by 24-9-2001. Since he could not pay the Court Fee within the aforesaid period, he requested the Court to grant 15 days time to deposit the Court Fee, but the Court below refused to grant 15 days time requested for and dismissed the suit on 24-9-2001. It is this order of the Court below that is challenged by the applicant/plaintiff in this petition. The Court below after directing the applicant to pay the Court fee ought to have granted 15 days' time to pay the Court fee as requested by the counsel for the applicant and ought not to have dismissed the suit.3. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the or...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›