Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Anand Bakshi Vs. TanviruddIn Rizvi
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard on M. (C). P. No. 75/2002 for condonation of delay in filing the revision.2. The revision is against the order dated 18-9-2001 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-I in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2001. Office note shows that it is barred by five days. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings of the civil suit should be stayed, as filing of written statement will prejudice the criminal case of the applicant.6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the revision is not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is contended that both the proceedings may go on. Learned Counsel for the app...
Shaik Gouse MohiddIn Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4417; 2003(86)ECC372; 2003(1)MPHT5(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 63(3) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 30-1-2002 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS) Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Case No. 48 of 2001.2. Few facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:--The vehicle involved in this case bears registration No. AP-16X/5245. The said vehicle was seized by Dornapal Police, District Dantewada on 5-9-2001 in Crime No. 19 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act. The police after completing investigation filed the charge-sheet against two persons namely B. Ramchandra Rao and M. Shankaraiya. Learned Special Judge convicted the said accused persons for commission of the aforesaid offence and sentenced them and passed the order confiscating the vehicle to the Government on 30-1-2001. It is that ...
Sanjay Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2877; 2002(4)MPHT26(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. Counsel for the State has submitted the report of District Magistrate, Bilaspur and documents of the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and that of Principal Secretary Jail, Chhattisgarh Government.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The applicant is being prosecuted in Crime No. 121/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 294, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 6-6-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 7-6-2001. He had earlier applied for grant of bail on the ground of ailment. The report of Civil Surgeon was called for. The Civil Surgeon on 17-1-2002 informed that the applicant is suffering from heart ailment, hypertension, epilepsy, Hepatitis 'B', stone disease, neuropathy, nerve disease and thyroid disease. Orders were passed on 14-12-2001 for examination of the applicant in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur orany other hospital. On 31-1-2002 when the case was taken up for hearing, the State Counsel ma...
Baghel Prasad Dharam Chand Jewellers Vs. Chandra Prakash Vaidya
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT18(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, dated 26-7-2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/2001, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-9-98 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I in Civil Suit No. l-A/98. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant/defendant on 16-1-1995 on the ground that the appellant/defendant is tenant and the respondent/plaintiff is landlord and the suit accommodation is required for starting of business of his son Ashish. It was submitted that there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation.2. The appellant/defendant filed written statement and denied the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. It was also contended in the written statement that the alternative suitable accommodation for carrying on business of Ashish is available with the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court framed 8 issues including the ...
Abdul Wahid Vs. Babbu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC600; 2003ACJ662; 2003(1)MPHT1(CG)
Fakhruddin, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 31-7-1990 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg for enhancement of the amount awarded.3. The accident occurred on 1-6-1988. While the claimant was travelling in a Bus No. M.K.T. 1116 belonged to Durg Travels Pvt. Ltd., another Bus No. C.I.S. 8178 dashed the first bus from behind, as a result ofwhich, the applicant received injuries on right hand and forehead. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Durg. He was operated upon and a steel rod was inserted in his right hand. When he could not improve, the steel rod was removed from the right hand. The treatment continued for about a year. It is said that at the time of accident he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He had also to engage a servant paying Rs. 450/- to him. For medicines, he had incurred Rs. 3000/-. It is said that because his right hand has been permanently disabl...
Santosh Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Jay Prakash Agarwal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2004Chh11; 2002(4)MPHT53(CG)
ORDERP.J. Naik, J.1. This revision by the defendant is directed against the order dated 20-2-2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh in Civil Suit No, 83-A/2002, rejecting petitioners' application to decide the question of the admissibility of certain documents adduced by the plaintiff during the course of his examination before the suit is disposed of. 2. During his examination-in-chief, certain documents were produced by the plaintiff when they were sought to be brought on record, objection regarding the admissibility of these documents was raised. The Court put exhibit marks on the documents with an endorsement and recorded that the objection/question of admissibility shall be decided at the time of passing of the judgment. Aggrieved therewith the petitioners moved an application with a prayer to consider the question of admissibility at the stage of objection. The rejection of this application has given rise to this revision petition. 3. The contention on behalf...
Wahid Ahmed Vs. Ganesh Sonwani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT31(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. The plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction and also claimed for temporary injunction. An ex parte injunction was granted but subsequently, on appearance by defendant, the said order was vacated. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed and thereafter a revision was filed being C.R. No. 461/2001 before this Court. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 19-6-2002. It is noted in the said order that at that time, since the main suit itself had been dismissed, therefore, the revision petition was also stand dismissed. The interim order passed on 20-7-2001 was also vacated. The suit being dismissed, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. He also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was opposed. The learned Appellate Court by the impugned order has rej...
Manoj Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3519; 2002(4)MPHT35(CG)
ORDERP.C. Naik, J.1. Since all the four applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relate to Crime No. 705/2001, Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 662/2002 Manish Agrawal is the husband, the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 148/2002 Laxmi Narayan Agrawal is the father-in-law, the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 189/2002 Smt. Vimla Devi Agrawal is the mother-in-law and the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 146/2002 Manoj Agrawal is the 'Devar' of deceased Puja.3. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 705/2001, registered by Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur for an offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the applicant Manoj Agrawal (in M.Cr.C. No. 146/2002) along with his sister Dr. Sarita Agrawal had moved an application (Bail Petition No. 3146/2001) under Section 438 of Cr. PC before the Lower Court which, on 2-1-2002, has allowed the applicatio...
M. Narayan Rao Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT33(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. 1. This petition is listed for admission and order on M. (Cr.) P. No. 3021/2002, application for stay. With the consent of both the Counsel, this petition is disposed of on merits.2. Heard both the Counsel.3. In this petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC the applicant, who is one of the accused in S.T. No. 107/2002 pending on the file of the Special Judge (S.C. and S.T. Act), Jagdalpur, has challenged the order dated 18-4-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C. and S.T. Act), Jagdalpur, framing charges against the applicant for the offences under Section 489 B and C of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act'). There are seven accused in all in the said case.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that on 22-12-2001 at about 12 O'clock, the applicant and other accused persons went in a jeep near Railway C...
R.K. Agrawal Vs. M.L. Shahni
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT16(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter is such, which can be reconciled under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure. They pray that the case may be taken after sometime.3. The case was accordingly taken up after sometime. 4. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is relevant and is quotedbelow:--'89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.-- (1) Where itappears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for- (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat;or mediation. (2) Where a dispute has been referred- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »