Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
BadruddIn Quraishy Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J. 1. The petitioner was a member of the State Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh from Bhilai Constituency. He belongs to the National Congress Party. By a Notification dated 15-9-2003 issued under Section 18 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State Government nominated the petitioner as a member of the State Haj Committee. In the general election of 2003, the petitioner contested but was not elected as a member of the State Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh from Bhilai Constituency and as a consequence he ceased to be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly of the State Chhattisgarh. By an order dated 11-2-2004 of the State Government, the petitioner was removed as a member of the State Haj Committee. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the said order dated 11-2-2004 of the State Government.2. In the return filed by th...
Prashant Kumar Vs. State of C.G.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh1; 2005(4)KLT159
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By these Writ Petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the orders to refuse renewal of their certificates to practice as Notary on the basis of Government order dated 31st December, 2002.Brief facts leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are that the petitioners who are Advocates by profession practicing law in different parts of the State of Chhattisgarh were functioning as notaries public as they were appointed as such under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. In the last, their renewal was refused by the State Government on the basis of its executive order dated 31st December, 2002, whereby looking to the number of Notary posts fixed for the State it has been decided that under Section 5 of the Act, the certificate to practice as Notary Public is to be renewed once in order to give chance to more number of Advoca...
Raipur Development Authority Vs. SarIn Construction Company
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh12
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 13-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur in Suit No. 2-B/2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein that the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition arc that a dispute had arisen between the parties and therefore, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed the arbitral award dated 11-12-1998 in favour of the respondent herein. Against the said award the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 thereinafter shall be referred as to 'the Act of 1996') in the Court of District Judge, Raipur for setting aside the said award. Ho...
Sonalal Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4461
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles. 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India being dissatisfied and aggrieved by unfair investigation conducted by respondent No. 5 in Crime No. 87/2002 registered at Police Station Mungeli in respect of murder of his son namely Somesh Kumar Soni.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner and his son Somesh Soni were engaged in the business's of video shooting and photography. They were running the shop at Mungeli. The petitioner's son was also doing the business of running taxi. On 9-3-2002 main accused Akhilesh Singh Thakur engaged the taxi of Somesh Soni for the purpose of his marriage and he also engaged Somesh Soni for photography and videography. On that day in between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. when Somesh Kumar Soni demanded money for purchase of diesel for his taxi from accused Akhilesh Singh Thakur, that annoyed Akhilesh Singh and at that very moment, he took gun from ...
Ritu Parn Namdeo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT7(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 27-11 -2004 passed by the Tehsildar, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur, whereby the Tehsildar rejected the application of the petitioner, moved for issuance of OBC certificate, on the ground that the petitioner's father's income is more than Rs. 3 lakhs, therefore the petitioner comes in the category of creamy layer.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that after passing the graduation examination the petitioner is prosecuting his studies in law course at Delhi University and he is permanent resident of Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur. Petitioner's father Dr. Bharat Namdeo is working as Doctor (Class I Officer) in the Health Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Father of the petitioner is from Namdeo caste, which has been declared as Other Backward Class for the State of Ch...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu Sharan and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC826; 2006ACJ2439
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Fakhruddin, J.1. The facts of the case briefly are that a scooter bearing registration No. CG-16 5870 was owned by Devchandra Ram, respondent No. 3. On 10.3.2003, the said scooter was being driven by Jaimangal Pratap Singh, respondent No. 4, who is said to be having learner's licence. While respondent No. 4 was driving the scooter on 10.3.2003 Chain Prakash along with his sister came in a cycle near the Cherhani Nala and the scooter hit the cycle and the injured Chain Prakash. Chain Prakash was admitted in the hospital. He finally succumbed to injuries and died on 14.3.2003. Respondent- claimant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., Sadhu Sharan and Bilasi respectively who are parents of Chain Prakash then filed Claim Case No. 37 of 2003 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Surajpur, Sarguja by award dated 14.9.2004 awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,07,840 against the appellant insurance company. Aggrieved b...
Mohan (In Jail) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3271
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner-Mohan, aged about 17 years, was found in possession of 34 liters and 507 milliliters of illicit liquor. The liquor was seized from him, and he was arrested for committing the offence under Section 34(1)(a) of the Excise Act. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 (henceforth 'the Act') for grant of bail. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his application vide order dated 5-1-2005. Disgruntled with the said order, he preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Act before Sessions Judge, Raipur. Learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, after hearing both the parties, maintained the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that there is reason to believe that the petitioner may come into association with criminals connected with the crime for which the petitioner was arrested and his release would defeat the ends of justice, and accordingly dismissed...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›