Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Shyama Bai Verma and anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ137
Fakhruddin, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 26.7.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 2 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Link Court, Pendra Road whereby the application for interim award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected on the ground that truck driver/owner have not been impleaded as party respondent.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 14.6.1998 the husband of appellant No. 1, namely, Suresh Verma along with his relatives was travelling in a jeep bearing No. MP 26 E 0781 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The said vehicle met with an accident on the way near village Keonchi on account of head-on collision with an unidentified truck coming from the opposite direction. The jeep was badly damaged and Suresh Verma received serious head injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 19.6.1996. The offending truck fled from the spot.3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the acci...
Radesh Kumar Paikara Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT16(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Khuranga, C.J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. This is an application under Section 439, Cr.PC filed by the applicant for grant of bail. He is an accused in Crime No. 64/2000 registered in Police Station, Kasdol, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC. Name of the prosecutrix is Uttara Kumari.3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant took away the girl from Village Datan to Sisdevari and from there to Bendari and Raipur and from there to Amodi and Tanaud and Nandiniya and forcibly committed rape on her. According to the case of the prosecution she was taken by the applicant from her house to his house on 11-12-1999 and thereafter on 12-12-1999 the applicant also took her to other places. The complaint was filed by the victim on 6-4-2000 after 3 months and 25 days of the incident. She has stated in the complaint that she was studying in VIIIth standard and the applicant was teaching in a school in Village Datan. She started loving him. He pro...
Shri Brijmohan Lal Vs. Smt. Daljit Kaur
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT55(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard on I.A. No. 712/2001 application under Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act filed by the respondent for dismissal of the appeal.2. In this application, the prayer made is quoted below :-- 'It is therefore prayed that the above appeal may be dismissed with cost.' 3. This appeal was admitted on 6-1-1995. The order of admission is pertinent and is quoted below :-- 'The question involved in this appeal is regarding the meaning and definition of the word 'accommodation' as mentioned in Section 2 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. In this case, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Ravish Agrawal submitted that there are two divergent opinions - one of this Courtin 1969 MPLJ 391 Shrikisandas v. Radhabai, where this Court has held the vacant land as accommodation whereas the similar provision was interpreted by the Calcutta High Court in AIR Calcutta 398 (Burdwan Real Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Lal Behari Kapuria), to be not including the vacant...
Gorelal and anr. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT7(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard on admission.2. The applicants have preferred this revision against the order dated 23-2-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in M. J.C. No. 2/97 whereby the application filed under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 20-12-96 passed in Civil Suit No. 17-B/95 has been rejected.3. The respondent Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of the loan amount from applicant No. 1-Gorelal. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 17-B/95 which was decreed on 20-12-96. Para 6 of the order impugned dated 23-2-2001 shows that during trial of the original suit the plaintiff-Bank examined Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and para 7 shows that issues were framed.Issue No. 6 was with regard to the grant being given by the departments of the State Govt. and that has been decided against the applicants-defendants.4. An application for 'Review' of judgment is made under Order 47; substantive Section is 114, which is quoted below:--'114. Review...
Satya Narayan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2899; 2002(4)MPHT6(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 59 of 2002 registered at P.S. Lakhanpur for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC.3. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below shows that earlier learned Sessions Judge on two occasions i.e., 14-5-2002 and 19-6-2002 rejected the application for bail. The allegation is that when the prosecutrix was returning, the accused on the way caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and committed assault. It is stated that there are injuries on the person of prosecutrix.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely been implicated due to enmity and also contends that there was some dispute of property. Certain grounds have been urged in Paragraph 6.4 regarding property dispute and in para 6.5 it has been stated that the applicant has demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Kameshwar, the husband of the prosecutrix for not disclosing the matter of beating to his servant and causing his...
Smt. Shakuntala Singh Vs. Dauram Ratankar and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Chh16
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. One of the issues (No. 3) framed in the case is whether the Returning Officer is a proper party, if so effect?3. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 raised objection in paragraph 19 of the written statement, which reads as under :'That all the allegations in the petition are made against the Returning Officer that he has not fairly and imparitially discharged his official duty. The petitioner also made the absurd allegations that the respondent No. 1 pressurized the Returning Officer during the counting. It is humbly submitted that the respondent No. 1 does not belong to a party, which has a government in Madhya Pradesh. The entire allegations of Unfairness and favouritism during the counting were made against the returning officer. Therefore, though the Returning Officer is not a necessary party but a proper party in this Election Petition to answer and rebut the allegations made against him. Therefore, on this ground alone the petition is liable to...
Gajanand and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC797
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.Heard both the Counsels.1. This is an application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of bail. They are the accused in Crime No. 104/2002, registered in Dharsiya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2. The name of the deceased is Shanti Bai, wife of applicant No. 1 - Gajanand. The date of the incident is 10.5.2002.3. The applicant No. 1 is the husband; the applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law and the applicant No. 3 is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicants were arrested on 17.5.2002.4. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants were ill-treating the deceased and were beating her stating that she was of dark complexion, she was not doing household work properly and she has no brain. On account of that the deceased committed suicide by burning herself. The complaint was filed by R.S. Sahu, Police Officer, on 11.5.2002 and on the basis of the same registered the afor...
Sitesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Ranjana Bhagdiker and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT49(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.Heard on admission. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 17-4-2002 passed in M.J.C. No. 7/1999 whereby the Court of VIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur, has restored the Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1999. 2. Briefly stated facts arc that separate civil suits for eviction were filed by three persons namely Smt. Savita Bhagdiker, Sanjay Bhagdiker and Ajay Bhagdikcr against the tenants/defendants namely Sitesh Kumar Dwivedi, P.N. Hatekar and Dilip Purushottam. Notices were issued and the case was fixed for 8-3-1999 (or filing written statement before one week and for framing of issues. When the case was listed on 8-3-1999, plaintiffs and their Counsel could not appear and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, applications for restoration were filed on 17-3-1999 on the ground that the plaintiffs had engaged their Counsel namely Shri R.K. Jaiswal and on that date Shri Jaiswal had some cases in Sessions Court of Pendra Road and Shri Jaiswal ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›