Chhattisgarh Court January 2006 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.
Sujit Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT62(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The petitioners 50 in number were granted small pieces of land each admeasuring '8 x 10' owned by Gram Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara vide its resolution No. 16, dated 18-8-2004 for business purpose in terms of Section 65 (1) of the Panchayal Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') after obtaining approval of the Collector, Kabirdham District (Kawardha) subject to certain terms and conditions. It appears that after the fourth respondent was elected as Sarpanch of Sahaspur Lohara Gram Panchayat, she lodged complaints with the respondent authorities complaining that the lease of the land in favour of the petitioner was irregular and illegal. That has resulted in an inspection of the proceedings of the grants made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Section 84 of the Adhiniyam. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kawardha, third respondent herein, is conducting an enquiry into the allegation and the enquiry and I am told it is in progress....
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Narendra Barmani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT102(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Both these appeals have been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-1998 passed by District Judge, Jagdalpur by which award passed by Conservator of Forest, Kanker on 27-3-1996 has been made Rule of the Court.2. For disposal of these appeals, facts material in brief compass are that respondent/plaintiff entered into agreements with the appellants for transportation of wood logs and executed two written agreements which contain arbitral clause. Respondent/plaintiff failed to transport the wood in conformity with the promise of the contract, therefore, for breach of contract, contracts awarded to him have been cancelled and Rs. 15,202/- and Rs. 29,348/- have been confiscated. Respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). Learned District Judge after calling the agreement and providing opportunity to both the parties referred the dispute to the Conservator of Fores...
Bhagwani Devi and anr. Vs. Wadhuram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh49
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-11-1997 passed in Civil Suit No. l-A/97 (Old Civil Suit No. 84-A/91 by the learned IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of Dist. Judge, Raipur, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the suit property, lands and house described in Schedule-1 annexed with the plaint has been dismissed.2. Facts material for disposal of this appeal, in brief compass, are that Sumarmal Menghani and Wadhuram are sons of Pesumal Menghani. Both the sons were the members of Hindu Undivided Family, after the death of Pesumal Menghani, they became exclusive owners of entire movable and immovable property left by Pesumal Menghani. In the year 1950 Sumarmal Menghani died in Pakistan and Wadhuram became Karta of Hindu Undivided Family who started managing and enjoying the affairs of joint properties. Out of the income of Hindu Undivided Family, Wadhuram raised funds and sent the same to his son Chu...
Mohammed Siddique Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2007
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20-12-2005 marked as Annexure-P/5 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Chhattisgarh Government - second respondent herein dismissing appeal and affirming the order dated 6-8-2005 passed by District Magistrate, Bilaspur-third respondent herein under Section 6(c) of the Chhattisgarh Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short 'the Adhiniyam) externing the petitioner from six districts in the State of Chhattisgarh.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :The Supreintendent of Police, Bilaspur -fourth respondent herein filed report before the third respondent against the petitioner for initiating proceedings under Sections 3 to 5 of the Adhiniyam. The third respondent having issued a notice to the petitioner and satisfying himself that the petitioner is habitually indulging in the activities of gambling which is a social crime, passed the impugned order pur...
Sachchanand Moolchandani Vs. Dr. Meghraj K. Ramnani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT20(CG)
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') as he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Lower Appellate Court and by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 36-B/2002 has been dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the above judgment and decree has been partly allowed. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the Trial Court.)2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 25,000/-advanced to the defendant against two promissory notes dated 25-5-1992 for Rs. 15.000/- and 26-5-1992 for Rs. 10.000/- and the interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the above amount and other expenses. Thus the plaintiff claimed recovery of a total sum of Rs. 34,000/- and interest at the rate of 18% per annu...
Thakur Mohan Singh Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT34(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The petitioner herein having served as driver under the State and putting in 20 years 10 days of service, retired on 31-1-1986 on attaining the age of superannuation. His pension was not properly fixed. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 01/1999 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') seeking mandamus to the Department to re-fix his pension taking into account 20 years 10 days of service put in by the petitioner and to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the difference. The O.A. was contested by the Department. The Tribunal having appreciated the rival contentions and materials laid before it, upheld the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of his pension. However, the Tribunal, on the ground that there was a delay of 8 years on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court, directed that on re-fixation of pension, the re-fixed pension would be paid to the petitioner only prospectively and he is not en...
Motilal Sahu Vs. Chhattisgarh Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT20(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India challenging legality of the order dated 29-1-1996 (Annexure P-4) whereby the date of retirement of the petitioner has been changed to the retrospective date from 14-1994 to 30-6-1988.2. The facts in nutshell and relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lineman Grade-II by the Superintendent Engineer, MPEB, Rajnandgaon and continued to work as Lineman Grade-II till by order dated 1-1-1994 (Annexure P-1), he was retired from services w.e.f. 1-1-1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents by order dated 29-1-1996 cancelled the order dated 1-1-1994 whereby the petitioner was directed to retire w.e.f. 1-1-1994. It was ordered that the petitioner ought to have retired w.e.f. 30-6-1988 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.3. Subsequently, by order dated 5-2-1996 (Annexure P-3), respondents treated period of se...
Smt. Sumita Voditelwar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT85(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 11-1-2001 seeking following reliefs:(i) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus thereby quashing the notice No. 0/2000, dated 31-5-2000 Annexure P-7.(ii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ and/or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents and each of them from giving effect and/or further effect, till disposal of this petition.(iii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue yet another writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release arrears of salaries of the petitioners w.e.f. March, 2000 till date.(iv) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction of directions deemed fit in the interest of justice.2. That the facts in nutshell are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Headmistress on 1-7-1980 vide order dated 20-12-...
Nagendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. Smt. Hakeem Bai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT17
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 17-10-03 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, 'Authority'), Raipur, in Case No. 6/90 (8) 2002-2003 whereby order for the recovery of possession in favour of landlord/respondent has been passed.2. Respondent/landlord Smt. Hakeem Bai filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act for the recovery of possession of the suit accommodation on the ground that the suit accommodation is required bonafide by her for business of her son namely Falaz Abbas Saifi.3. Petitioner/tenant on service of summons, within prescribed period filed an application supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which he sought to contest the application for eviction to obtain leave from the Rent Controlling Authority in accordance with Section 23-C of the Act. The application was opposed by the landlord/respondent. Petiti...
Nanku Ram and anr. Vs. Prakash Ram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC314; 2006ACJ1705
S.R. Nayak, C.J.1. In this appeal where enhancement of compensation is sought, the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that on the date of the accident and demise of the deceased, the average age of appellants-claimants was 43.5 years and, therefore, M.A.C.T. ought to have applied multiplier 15 in terms of Second Schedule instead of wrongly applying multiplier 8. It was also contended that the M.A.C.T. is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of filial love and loss to estate. We find force in the contentions.2. There is no controversy between the parties that as on the date of accident, the appellants-claimants were aged 45 and 42 years respectively and, therefore, the average age of the appellants-claimants would come to 43.5 years. In that view of the matter, the M.A.C.T. ought to have applied multiplier 15 in terms of Second Schedule. If we apply multiplier 15, loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,24,000. Therefore, we award a sum o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›