Chhattisgarh Court January 2005 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.
Utkal Highways and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh29
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner M/s. Utkal Highways through its partners has questioned the propriety and correctness of the order dated 15-4-2004 whereby respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer has terminated the contract dated 11-3-2003 entered into between the Water Resources Department and the petitioner herein to execute the work of construction of Masonry Structures and earth work of main canal from 19 Km. to 26 Km. at the cost of Rs. 128 lakhs, on the ground that the alleged action of respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Raipur vide Annexure P/2 invited tenders from the contractors who were registered with Engineer-in-Chief C.G. Water Resources Department R...
Subrat Kumar Mandal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT11(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press I.A. No. 4656/2004.2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4656/2004 is dismissed as not pressed.3. Heard on M.Cr.P. No. 3525/2004 for suspension of conviction.4. Government Advocate for the State relying on Union of India v. Atar Singh and Anr., reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 212, vehemently opposes the application for suspension of conviction whereas the appellant's contention is that he has been convicted under Sections 332 and 506 Part II of the IPC and 146 of the Railway Act and sentences imposed on him have been suspended by this Court's order dated 2-11-2004, now has been served with a notice by the Railway Authorities that because of the conviction as aforesaid he is disqualified to be kept in Government service, he is a Sub-Khalasi and the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced are not related with his duties, therefore, the conviction which now disqualifies him as per Railway Authoritie...
Manjeet Singh Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ420CG
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17-3-2004 (Annexure P-13) passed in Civil Appeal No. 408/MPIR/A-II/2002 by the Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.). By the impugned order, the learned Industrial Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17-12-2002 (Annexure P-12) passed in Case No. 31/MPIR/92 by the Labour Court, Raipur.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 31 (3) read with Section 61 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Raipur, alleging that he was working as conductor in the establishment of the respondents since the year 1980 and was dismissed from service by the order of respondent No. 2 bearing No. 203, dated 31-8-1991 (Annexure P-8). The further allegations are that a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and resp...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Industries
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR412(NULL)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by order dated 8-9-1998 passed by the 2nd Additional Distt. Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 4-A/95 by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was dismissed, this revision has been filed by the non- applicant/petitioner.2. Respondent took two fire policies from the petitioner, i.e., Policy No. 00343/90, dated 6-8-1990 covering risk of building worth Rs. 15 lacs plant machinery worth Rs. 10 lacs, material/goods worth Rs. 21 lacs and Policy No. 003067/90, dated 14-11-1990, covering risk of stock etc., worth Rs. 14,40,000/-, scraps etc. worth Rs. 1,40,000/-. In November, 1990 the factory was put into fire by some unknown persons in the intervening night of 20/21st November, 1990 which caused heavy loss to the respondent. Respondent lodged a claim to recover loss suffered by him on account of fire worth Rs. 58,34,970/-. Non-applicant paid Rs. 16,67,528/- and Rs. 33,865...
Johanram Vs. Steel Authority of India and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Chh17; 2005(2)MPHT61(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has substantially challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 28-2-2004 (Annexure P-9) passed in Misc. Appeal No. 5/2003 by the Additional District Judge, Balod, District Durg (C.G).2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Balod for the relief of declaration that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 9-11-1948. He further claims that according to the said date of birth, he is entitled to work to the age of 60 years (the age of superannuation and thereafter he should be retired on 30-11-2008. A relief of permanent injunction was also sought for by the petitioner praying that the defendants should be restrained from superannuating the petitioner on 31-3-2003. A copy of the plaint is filed as Annexure P-3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a labour on 27-3-1973 and...
Holu Ram Nishad and anr. Vs. Ishak Mohmmed and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Ag. C.J.1. The appellants/claimants who are the father and mother of deceased Shreedeh have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 25-2-2003, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg in Claim Case No. 23 of 2002.2. The appellants/claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the learned Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-and another application under Section 140 of the Act for no fault liability, which have been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-3-2002 at about 3.00 p.m. a truck bearing Registration No. MPC/1909, renewed No. CG-04/ZC-2282 was parked near the house of one Hakim Baeg in a narrow lane of Village Mauoo. Respondent No. 1 was the driver and respondent No. 2 was the conductor of the said truck. Responde...
Kangalu Vs. Parau
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh47
ORDERFakhruddin, Actg. C.J.1. Heard.2. The revision is preferred against the order dated 14-2-2001 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Durg, in Execution case No. 31-A/ 97 whereby warrant of possession has been issued.3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant both are real brothers and when the defendant came to Bhilai in search of employment In Bhilai Steel Plant, he sought permission of the plaintiff to live in a portion of the house owned by the plain- tiff, as he was not having any house, on the assurance that as soon as he will get the house he will vacate the same. It is stated that though the defendant got the house and became permanent employee of Bhilai Steel Plant but did not vacate the house. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant denied the claim.4. The trial Court framed initially nine -issues and thereafter two additional issues i were framed. The trial Court on the basis of material on re...
Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ230CG; 2005(2)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Shina, J.1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.2. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-3) by which he has been transferred from SECL Establishment at Korba to Jamna Kotma. He has also challenged the validity of order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-5) which is an order passed on representation dated 09.09.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner is working on the Post of Chief Security Guard. His name appears at Serial No. 4 in the impugned order dated 31.5.2004. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-3) from S.E.C.L. Korba to S.E.C.L. Jamna Kotma. After receiving the said order, the petitioner challenged its validity by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No. 2416/2004. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 20.8.2004 and the same was disposed of with a direction that the ...
Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. As the pleadings are complete, therefore, it was decided to dispose of this matter finally at the admission stage itself.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 7-12-2004 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner's application for appearing in the interview for the post of Deputy Director has been rejected by respondent No. 1, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience as per the eligibility criteria.3. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that on a requisition received from the Department of Education respondent No. 1 herein vide Annexure P-2 invited the applications for filling up the vacancies in the Education Department to the posts of Deputy Director (Education). D.I.E.T. (District Institute...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›