Chhattisgarh Court September 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.
Beegan Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT3(CG)
ORDERS.K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Katkona on 9-9-1999. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 27-2-2000 (Annexure R-3) for financial irregularities committed in distribution of funds of Social Security Pension Scheme, National Old Age Pension Yojna, Jeevan Dhara, Indira Awas Yojna, Maternity Benefit Yojna and Wages of Workers. The petitioner declined to give acknowledgment of the notice served on him. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by Panchayat and Social Education Sangatak, Development Block, Lakhanpur, and the report was submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Sarguja by letter dated 29-6-2000 (Annexure R-5) after removal of the petitioner from the service on 30-5-2000.2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 30-5-2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Katkona, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur v...
Chhota Bhai Jetha Bhai Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC603(NULL)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.2. The facts as stated in the statement of case drawn up by the Board of Revenue are that the applicant Chhota Bhai Jetha Bai Patel and Co. is running the business of tendu leaves at Rajnandgaon. For the period November 5, 1964 to October 24, 1965 the applicant was assessed for sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the State Act') and as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the Central Act') by the Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon by order dated November 15, 1966. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, however, in exercise of powers of revision under Section 39(2) of the State Act, found that such orders of assessment were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. By order dated January 29, 1973, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, set aside the order of assessments passed under the State Act and...
Virendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Uco Bank and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh104
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 14-10-1996 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 96-A/ 1995 (Annexure-P/1) whereby learned Additional District Judge decided the issue No. 3 against the petitioner herein holding that the Court fee paid by the petitioner herein is insufficient and he is required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that on 2-4-1991 the petitioner herein deposited a cheque bearing No. 725323 dated 28-1-1991 for Rs. 3 lakhs issued by R. S. Shukla (brother of the petitioner herein) with respondent No. 2 for credit in his savings account No. 8296/34 and same was credited in the account on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner herein issued a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh on 25-4-1991 on his aforesaid account in favour of Anu...
Minor Dipika and Etc. Vs. C.G. State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2007Chh1
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Writ Petition No. 4200/2005 filed by Minor Dipika through her next friend Setram against the C.G. State Electricity Board & Writ Petition No. 1804/2005 filed by Minor Nalini through her next friend Ganesh Dhoba against the C.G. State Electricity Board are being disposed of by the common order, as in these writ petitions similar question of law is involved.2. By these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of orders dated 10.8.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit Nos. 5A/2004 & 6A/2004 whereby learned District Judge has rejected the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Code') for summoning the witnesses along with original records mentioned in the application.3. Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner herein who are students of Gov...
Shivnandan Gosai Vs. Mangal Prasad Gupta
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT58(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. During the course of hearing on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a short question for consideration has been raised as to what would be the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 32 of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?2. Answering the aforesaid question, this order shall dispose of M. (C). P. No. 114 of 2005, which is the application for condonation of delay in filing the S.A. No. 37 of 2005, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 32 of C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the office report, this appeal is barred by 540 days of limitation. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 24-4-2003 passed by the District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3/2003 filed under Section 31 of the aforesaid Act. It appears that the Rent Controlling Authority, Ambikapur, District Sarguja passed an order...
Ambika Prasad Rajwade and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Chh107
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. All these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relate to the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') the Central Government has been vested with the power to make orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodity and trade and commerce therein if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The Central Government delegated this power to the State Governments under Section 5 of the Act by an order dated 9th of June, 1978 in relation to food stuffs subject to such conditions as specified i...
Bodhan Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT75(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The appellants/plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts, have filed this second appeal being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 11-12-2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/2003 by the IInd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara, District Durg, arising out of judgment and decree dated 14-1-1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1987 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.).2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that the order passed in Revenue (Ceiling) Case No. 167-169-B/90 (3) years 1975-76 on 22-6-1982 by the Competent Authority be declared void and inoperative against them. It was further prayed that the plaintiffs be declared the owners of the entire suit land, comprising of 19.95 acres except the land admeasuring 4.87 acres described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. They further claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant/State from distributing the surplus land to the othe...
Alok Chandravanshi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT24(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The 14 petitioners, who are presently working on various posts in Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (C.S.I.D.C.) have filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (M.P.F.C.) for considering their cases for promotion to the next higher post.2. The brief facts are that prior to the re-organization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioners were working with the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation. After the re-organization and bifurcation of the States, the M.P.F.C. continued in the State of Madhya Pradesh but in the State of Chhattisgarh, the C.S.I.D.C. came into existence. As an effect of the reorganisation, various employees including the petitioners have been posted in the State of Chhattisgarh because of their allocation. The case of petitioners is that the bifurcation of the M.P.F.C. is yet to complete and the allocation of the employees of M.P.F.C. to C....
Tahar Singh Parihar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC108
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard on application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. which pertains to Crime No. 93/2005 of Police Station-Lormi, District-Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the I.P.C.2. Brief facts are that one Annapurna Singh of Aarang was married to the applicant No. 1 Tahar Singh Parihar on 22.6.2003. Applicant No. 3 Ku. Sarita Parihar and Applicant No. 4 Guljar Singh are the brother and sister and applicant No. 2 Mrs. Amola Singh Parihar is the mother of the applicant No. 1. It is alleged that the applicants ill-treated Annapurna Singh for not bringing sufficient dowry and committed several acts of cruelty towards him. Annapurna Singh returned to her parental home on 3rd April, 2005. Thereafter, a report levelling allegations under Section 498A and Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the applicants was lodged on 27.4.2005 in Police Station, Lormi and investigation is in progress.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that Annapurna...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›