Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Chhattisgarh Motor Winding Vs. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT69(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia the petitioner has questioned the legalipropriety and correctness of the order dated 6-4-2005 passed by learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur, whereby learned Civil Judge while upholding the objection raised by respondents has ordered that objection raised by defendants is correct and the plaintiff is directed to correct valuation by the next date otherwise application filed by respondents herein under Order 7 Rule 11 (B) shall be accepted.2. The question, which requires consideration by this Court, is that whether the plaintiff/the petitioner herein was required to pay ad valorem Court fee to value the suit filed by him under Section 7(iv) (c) or (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short the Act).3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court below with a prayer for issuance ...
Dr. L. Patnaik Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT51
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, who is posted as Assistant Manager, in United India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur since 26-12-2003 has challenged the validity of his transfer order dated 16-6-2005, whereby he has been transferred from Divisional Office, Raipur to Regional Office, Lucknow.2. The facts stated are that the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a raid on 6-4-2005 in the Divisional Office, Raipur and Branch Office Bilaspur including the residences of Dr. B.R. Singh, Divisional Manager, Raipur and Shri CJ. Arora, Branch Manager, Bilaspur. On the date of raid, Shri B.R. Singh was on leave and the petitioner was available in the office as Senior Most Officer. The petitioner submitted all the information and documents/files to the CBI team as per their requirement and for all these reasons he became a witness of the search proceedings of CBI for their Case No. RC 2(A)/ 2005/CBI/JBP registered under Sections 120B and 420, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sect...
Manoj Kumar and anr. Vs. Manish Kumar Rajput and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ568
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 32 of 2000, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Relevant facts in brief are that on 28.11.1997 at about 9 p.m. Mangilal was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. CG 24-174 which was being driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No. 3 is the insurer. The said jeep dashed against a standing truck and as a result of the accident Mangilal suffered some injuries. After treatment in the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, for two days and thereafter in Soubhaghya Hospital, Durg for about a month, he returned home and died on 11.2.1998. Appellants, the two major sons of deceased Mangilal, filed the aforesaid claim case before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal held in the impugned award that the appellants have not been able to establish a nexus between the injuries suffered by ...
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, Inc ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Chh21; 2006(1)MPHT18(CG)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. 37(1)(b)2. The facts briefly are that an agreement dated 22-4-1993 was executed between the appellant and the respondent under which the respondent was to supply installed equipment for modernization and upgradation of the production facilities of the appellant at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh. The agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration, Certain disputes arose between the parties and were referred to arbitration. The arbitration was held in England and the arbitral tribunal made two awards dated 10-11-2002 and 12-11-2002 in England. The appellant thereafter, filed applications under Section 34 of the Indian Act for setting aside the two awards dated 10-11-2002 and 12-11-2002 in the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur which were numbered as MJC Nos. 92 of 2003 and 14 of 2003, respectively. By order dated 20-7-2004, the learned District Judge, Bilaspur held that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Act ...
Raju Prasad Kewat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC760
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. Heard on M.Cr.P. No. 1854/2005 application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.2. This is the second application for bail. Earlier application was rejected.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to harassment in the name of demand of dowry even then learned Trial Court solely relying upon the statements of PW 6 brother of the deceased and P.W. 1 mother of the deceased convicted the appellant and sentenced him as above.4. She submits that the mother of the deceased has nowhere alleged harassment in the name of demand of dowry whereas P.W. 6 on the other hand alleged that the deceased was harassed. The only allegation she has made is that the appellant was suspicious and he suspected her character whereas PW 6, brother of the deceased, has not made any specific allegation regarding demand of dowry.5. On the other hand learned Counsel for the State opposses the bail application and su...
M. Sannu Ram Mandavi Vs. C. Mohan and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC505
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 31st March, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur in Claim Case Nos. 67 of 1996 and 68 of 1996.2. The facts briefly are that the appellants along with his wife Sukhmati were travelling on a Moped (Luna) bearing registration No. MP 25-1543 from Village Cholnar to Kirandul. A truck bearing registration No. MRS-9878 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the Moped. In the accident, the wife of the appellant died on the spot and the appellant sustained injuries on his left thigh and suffered a fracture on the knee. The appellant filed Claim Case No. 67 of 1996 for compensation for the death of his wife and also filed Claim Case No. 68 of 1996 for compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal clubbed the two claim cases and after recording evidence and hearing the parties awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000 in Claim Case No. 67 of 199...
Mahesh Prasad Vs. Nathulal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT98(CG)
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1990 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 43-A/89, by which the appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 6-10-1987 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 33- A/87 decreeing the suit for eviction, has been dismissed.2. Sagar Mal Agrawal filed a suit for eviction against defendant Mahesh Prasad on the ground that the suit accommodation occupied by the defendant Mahesh Prasad in the capacity of tenant is required by him for residential purpose of his own and his family members and is required bonafide. He has not other suitable house in his occupation at Raigarh. Mahesh Prasad contested the claim and averred that the house in occupation of Sagar Mal Agrawal is double storey consisting 18-20 rooms and is sufficient for residence of Sagar Mal Agrawal and his family members.3. Learned Trial Court, after du...
Administrator, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School and anr. V ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR759]; (2006)IILLJ872CG; 2006(2)MPHT43(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. A short but important question arises for consideration in this writ petition as to whether a principal of the aided non-Government Educational Institution is an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity can be extended to him or not ?2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Administrator and petitioner No. 2 is the Principal, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (C.G.). This is a non- Governmental aided Higher Secondary School. The case of the petitioners is that late Roopnarayan Chaturvedi was appointed in this institution on 20-7-1966. He died during service on 21-9-2001. His wife namely Smt. Vidyavati Chaturvedi, respondent No. 1 herein, made an application for payment of Gratuity before the management of the institution but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, she moved to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of...
Yogesh Chandra Sheel (Rai) Vs. Smt. Sandhya Rani Sheel and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT39
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The applicant-husband has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24-1-2003 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in Criminal Revision No. 12/2001 which was filed by non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 herein and thereby allowed the same and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 w.e.f. 14-12-2000. This apart, learned Additional Sessions Judge also granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the son of applicant and non-applicant No. 1 namely Shankar Sheel though he was not the party to the said revision petition before him.Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:-1. Non applicant No. 1 along with her son Shankar Sheel and non-applicant No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') claiming themselves to be wife, son and daughter respectiv...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›