Chhattisgarh Court October 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.
Emil Lakra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR423]; 2006(4)MPHT82(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, in the present petition, has assailed the amended transfer order dated 12-9-2006 (Annexure P-2) whereby the initial transfer order dated 1-8-2006 was amended to the effect that the petitioner was transferred to the Office of the Additional Director, Land Records and Settlement, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.2. The undisputed facts, in nut-shell are that the petitioner is a State Administrative Service Officer posted as Additional Collector. The petitioner was working on the post of Additional Collector, Ramanujganj pursuant to the order dated 21-12-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved to join the new place of posting i.e., Additional Collector, Raigarh pursuant to the transfer order dated 1-8-2006.3. The respondent No. 3 also happens to be a Member of State Administrative Service, who was granted senior scale in the cadre. He was transferred vide order dated 28-6-2006 (Annexure P-4) from Raigarh to Jashpur as Additional Collector. The said...
Shyamlal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4743
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Accused/appellant-Shyamlal was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 38/2006 for committing the murders of his fa-ther-Raghu Singh, mother Sapdai and sister Suvidha in the intervening night of 22nd/23rd September, 2005. After conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/appellant for each murder separately under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him with extreme penalty of death sentence.2. Learned Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. and the same has been registered in this Court as Death Reference No. 1/2006. At the same time, accused Shyamlal has also preferred an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Same has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 626/2006. Therefore, the criminal a...
Smt. Droupati Kaivartya Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT122(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 9-7-2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector in the capacity of District Election Officer, Bilaspur, by which, while informing to the petitioner that her application for appointment to the temporary post of Assistant Grade-III (Lower Division Clerk) during the course of elections which was for the period from 1-2-2003 to 31-2-2003 and again upto 30-6-2003 was dismissed, he also informed that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the said post and her claim of experience on the ground of her appointment in the year 1995, would not be taken into account as the very appointment in the year 1995 was not in accordance with the instructions of the Government.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is poor and unemployed lady and on the basis of her experience gained by working dur...
Khitti Sahu Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sahu and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1108
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. The appellant-non-applicant No. 1, Khitti Sahu has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 1.8.1998 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 10 of 1996 whereby the learned Tribunal while deciding preliminary issue No. 7 regarding maintainability of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal has held that the claim petition was maintainable.2. That respondent No. 1 herein had filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on the pleading that he was working as a tractor mechanic in the shop of appellant herein where respondent No. 2 herein brought his tractor-trolley for being repaired and while respondent No. 1 herein was fitting the bearing in the wheel of the tractor by removing the same and the tractor was standing over the jack, all of a sudden the tractor slipped from the jack and the tractor-trolley fell...
Manjeet Ram Kewat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPHT76(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioner who was an elected Sarpanch has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 12-6-2006 passed by the Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Revision No. 29/A/89 (A) year 2005-2006. By the aforesaid order, the Upper Collector has directed for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch exercising jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the M.P. (C.G.) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts, as stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khapridih, Tehsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur. On some complaint being lodged by respondent Nos. 4 to 7, a proceeding under Section 40 of the said Act was initiated against the petitioner and he was issued a show-cause notice. It is stated that reply to the said show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner and the matter was pending for dispo...
Uttam Chand Luniya Vs. Roshanlal Verma and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh25
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.2. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the order dated 6-5-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/06 by First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon whereby the application of the appellant/ plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the trial Court).3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract agreement with respect to the suit land with the averments that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into a contract agreement dated 15-7-2003 to sell the suit land bearing Khasra No. 218/1, area 1.82 acres situated at village Sahaspur, for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/-. A subsequent agreement was again entered into between the parties on 30-7-2003 to sell the land bearing Khasra No. 218/2, area 1.81 acres situated at...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1082
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. The following oral order of the court was passed by S.R. Nayak, C.J. In all these appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 730 731, 722, 728, 723 and 729 of 2006 preferred by insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the only question raised and argued is that though the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant insurance company is under no legal obligation to pay compensation to the claimants, it has directed the insurance company to pay compensation in the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.2. In M.A. Nos. 731, 723 and 729 of 2006, the respondents-claimants have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company placing strong reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of New In...
Sunil Singh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ510
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-2006 passed by Shri V.B. Singh, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Criminal Revision No. 156/2006 affirming the order dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur in Criminal Case No. 405/2006 whereby the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants on 29-6-2006 was dismissed, the applicants herein have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Undisputed facts are that the applicants were arrested on 31-3-2006 in crime No. 8/2006 by Police Outpost Bhatgoan, Police Station Pratappur for an offence under Section 395, IPC. The applicants were produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur on the same day who authorized their detention in judicial custody from time to time. On 29-6-2006 before the filing of challan, an application was moved at 11.00 a.m. on behalf of the applicants under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Argum...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Agrawal and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1399
V.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal against the award dated 28.2.1991 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 12 of 1989, whereby an award of Rs. 18,000 has been passed in favour of injured, respondent No. 1, who is owner of the vehicle.2. On 22.12.1987 at about 12.30 in the night, the respondent No. 1, being owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MKS 8684, sitting on the left side of the driver of the vehicle, was travelling in connection with his business of collecting milk. Respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle. The vehicle has been insured with the appellant. As a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the vehicle met with an accident and respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries, he lost his one eye and also suffered disfiguration. After calculating the damage, he filed an application under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth, 'the Act') claiming an amount of Rs. 85,000 against the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›