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.
Ravi @ Ravindra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT20(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th June, 2006 delivered by Shri A.K. Gaikwad, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2006 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 324 and 457 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and to rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 457, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each offence.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Ramu Takri was working as Guard in the I.O.W. Construction Office of Railway Department in Bhilai-3 on 24-10-2004. At about 1.00 A.M. the appellant scaled the boundary wall and entered the premises to commit theft of fish plates. Ramu Takri warned the accused from doing so whereupon the appellant snatched the club from Ramu Takri and assaulted him r...
Dr. Pradeep Balvandere Vs. Smt. Kundu Bai Mishra
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT31(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision under Section 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act') has been filed by the tenant/applicant challenging the propriety, illegality and correctness of the impugned order dated 1-3-2006 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (henceforth 'the Authority') in Case No. 9-90(8) 2004-05, whereby order of eviction has been passed in favour of the landlord/respondent.2. Fact material for disposal of this revision as unfolded before the Authority is that the respondent claiming herself to be the landlord in accordance with Section 23J of the Act, filed an application under Section 23A of the Act for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation, averring that the suit accommodation is required bonafide for starting business of her major son Kamlesh Kumar and she has no other suitable alternative accommodation available in the city. Applicant/tenant was served with notice in accordance Section 23-C of the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›