Chhattisgarh Court November 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.
Lalji and ors. Vs. Mus. Mariyam Bai and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh21
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-8-2006 by Shri N.K.S. Thakur, Additional District Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in First Appeal No. 5-A/2005 whereby the judgment and decree dated 1-9-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 89-A/2000 by Smt. Kiran Chaturvedi, Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli dismissing the suit was reversed, the defendants/appellants have preferred this Second Appeal.2. The following facts were not disputed in this appeal. Budhari and Kejaha were brothers. Respondent/plaintiff Mariyam Bai was married to Kejaha while the appellant/ defendant No. 4 Birij Bai was married to Budhari. Defendants/appellants No. 1 to 3 are the children of Budhari through Birij Bai. After death of Budhari, the disputed agricultural lands in area 5.2 acres situated in village Charnitola, P.H. No. 9, Tahsil Lormi were mutated in the name of appellants/ defendants, who were in possession thereof on the date of suit. After death of her husband Kejaha, Mariya...
Smt. BudhiyarIn Bai Vs. State of Chattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT124(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Hostel Servant (hostel fund) on 1-5-1984. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularized and she was promoted on the vacant post of Hostel Servant (contingency fund) w.e.f. 1-6-1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 725-10-735-855-15-900 vide order dated 27-5-1989 (Annexure A-1). The services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 26-2-2000 (Annexure A-4) pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education vide letter dated 3-2-2000, issued in compliance of the order dated 29-1-2000 passed by the General Administration Department.2. The petitioner by this petition seeks quashing of the order dated 26-2-2000 and consequential benefits.3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.4. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the committee dated 26-2-2000 reveals that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with law and it was de hors the ...
Sujesh Kumar Turkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT39(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 22/2006, registered at Police Station, Manpur District Rajnandgaon (CG), for the offence punishable under Section 34A of the Excise Act.2. The brief facts, as stated by the learned Counsel for the State, according to the case diary, are that illicit liquor in the quantity of 315 quarter bottles, amounting to 56 bulk litres, was seized from the house of one Videshi Ram Gond in Village Manpur. When Videshi Ram Gond was asked to explain the possession, he stated that this liquor belonged to the applicant-Sujesh Kumar Turkar, who is the shopkeeper of liquor shop of Village Manpur.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the seizure memo is also prepared, showing seizure of the liquor from the house of Videshi Ram Gond, therefore, the aforesaid seizure cannot be attr...
Gajratan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ718
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this appeal, appellant Gajratan has questioned the legality and correctness of the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3-6-2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused-appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(6), 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, R.I. for six months and R.I. for six months respectively. It is also directed that all the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2-4-1999, the prosecutrix lodged report Ex. P-1 in Police Station, Akaltara to the effect that about six months back she along with her parents went to Allahabad for earning livelihood, there they were working in a brick kiln. Her mother was pregnant. Her father committed rape on her 5 to 6 times. She disclosed this fact to her mother but she did not ...
Mani Ram Dhrub Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT27(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, by order dated 23-12-1998 (Annexure A-3), for a period of 2 years on probation with a condition that if the petitioner remains absent, his service can be terminated with one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner was appointed in accordance with law.2. The petitioner remained absent during probation period in the month of January for 5 days, February for 4 days, March for 8 days and April for 6 days, which is evident from the show-cause notice dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure A-4). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause by Annexure A-5. It is further pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have sanctioned leave for absence of the petitioner in the month of February and March.3. Despite sanctioning of leave in the month of February and March, the petitioner remained absent in the month of April also. During the period of probatio...
Chhotu Dewangan and anr. Vs. Smt. Urmilabai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh34
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against an order dated 19th June 2006 passed by 11th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, C.G. in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2006 whereby the Order passed in Succession Case No. 36/2003 by 6th Civil Judge, Class-1, Raipur directing issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of non-applicants, was affirmed.2. Admittedly, non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Urmilabai is the widow and Pawan Kumar, non-applicant No. 2 is the son of late Jagat Ram Dewangan who had two deposits of the maturity value of Rs. 65049/- and Rs. 14,902/- in Branch Office Dena Bank, Kharora on his death on 11-4-2003. Jagat Ram Dewangan was unmarried at the time of making the deposit and had nominated his parents Parthaneen and Mangtu Dewangan and nephew minor Chhotu Dewangan through guardian Rameshwar, son of Khorbahra, the applicant No. 1.3. Non-applicant Urmila Bai and her minor son Pawan filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession ...
Smt. Mithila Dubey and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh33; 2007(1)MPHT36(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Learned Counsel for the applicants pray that this revision may be heard finally at the stage of admission.Prayer is not opposed by learned Senior Advocate for the non-applicants. Heard.1. Brief facts are that deceased Premraj Rajeshwar Dubey was working as a peon in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Korba (West). He had nominated the applicants, i.e., his wife and children as nominees in the service record. On his death on 7-4-2004, the department asked for the succession certificate from the applicants herein who filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before Civil Judge, Class I, Katghora, District Korba in Succession Case No. 16/2004. The non-applicants herein resisted the application on the ground that non-applicant-Shanti Bai was wife of the deceased Premraj who had executed a will in favour of the non-applicants prior to his death.2. The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Katghora on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parti...
Santosh Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ220
1. The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.The Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Sessions Division Bilaspur, found the appellant-Santosh Sharma guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-7-2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 270/98.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial, in brief, is that the appellant is nephew of Chudamani Sharma and Chudamani Sharma is father-in-law of Virendra Kumar. Appellant had an eye over the property of Chudamani Sharma. Virendra Kumar after his marriage used to visit his in-laws house off and on, therefore, appellant suspected that Chudamani Sharma would give his property to Virendra Kumar, therefore, appellant was keeping animosity with Virendra Kumar and his family members. In 1997 appellant assaulted Virendra Kumar who repo...
Anil Kumar Kesharwani Vs. Satyawati Kashyap and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1543
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006, passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby an amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 was directed to be paid by the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on principle of no fault liability.2. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that appellant herein is the authorised dealer of Sonalika International Tractor at Bilaspur. On 6.11.2005, a Sonalika International Tractor valued at Rs. 3,58,735 and trolley valued at Rs. 70,000 was delivered by the appellant to one Jagdish Prasad Sharma for demonstration purpose after receiving an amount of Rs. 35,000. It so happened that while the tractor-trolley was in custody of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and was being driven by his driver Dilip Kumar Kashyap near Ratanpur on 9.11.2005, it dashed against Satyawati Kashyap. It is also not in dispute that neither the tractor-trolley was insured on the date of acciden...
Ravindra Minj Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT57
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant/juvenile, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2006, registered at Police Station, Baikunthpur, District Koria for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.2. The brief facts are that this applicant, who is a juvenile offender, co-accused namely Bhunesh and the deceased namely Santara Bai, who is the wife of co-accused-Bhunesh, were travelling on a motorcycle. In fact, they were returning back from the parents' place of the deceased-Santara Bai. The allegations are that in the way, the co-accused pressed the mouth and neck of the deceased with the help of Gumchha/hands and ultimately, the deceased became unconscious. The deceased was taken to the hospital, but the hospital was closed. It is stated that the deceased died without getting any treatment. In the post-mortem report, it comes that the caus...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »