Chhattisgarh Court February 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.
Smt. Neela Bai Vs. Bhupendra Rajput and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT12(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Heard.2. Respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit bearing No. 56-A/1988 for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed in his favour on 4-5-1988. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the petitioners for declaring the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 56-A/1988 to be void. The said civil suit bearing No. 65-A/1993 has been dismissed on 9-10-1998 by the Trial Court. On appeal bearing No. 37-A/1998, the 1st Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 65-A/93. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sections 144 and 151 of the CPC for restitution of the Civil Suit No. 56-A/88 and the Trial Court vide impugned order restored the suit in its original number.3. Vide judgment and decree passed by 1st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/1998 on 12-9-2000, the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 65-A/1993 has been set aside. As a result thereof, the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 56-A/1988 had ...
Chaturmal Salecha Vs. Jai Kumar
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT18(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Brief facts for disposal of this revision are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,52,600/- against the applicant/defendant in the Court of Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, alleging that on 1-9-1995 agreement to sell the property belonging to Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar who are minors, was executed by applicant/defendant and an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand) was received by him towards earnest money against the total amount of consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/-.2. Applicant/defendant filed an application on 18-9-2001 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar have executed the alleged agreement to sale, but the respondent/plaintiff did not join both of them as party in the suit. No cause of action arose against the applicant/defendant. Learned Lower Court considered the application and dismissed the same vide...
Rupendra Singh Vs. Krishna Kanhaiya and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh37
ORDERVijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-11-1995 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 5/92, reversing the order dated 30-11-1991 in Succession Case No. 6/85 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Rajnandgaon, who rejected the application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (for short, 'the Act') for grant of succession certificate in favour of the non-applicant No. 1.2. Facts material for disposal of this revision in brief compass are that non-applicant No. 1 Krishna Kanhaiya after the death of Bhanumati Bai who died on 22-11-1984, claiming himself and non-applicant No. 2 being step-brother, to be her legal heirs, filed application for grant of succession certificate in respect of rent for the month of November, 1984, December, 1984 and January, 1985 total Rs. 900/- (Rupees nine hundred). Non-applicant No. 2 did not appear and remained ex parte. Applicant objected grant of succession certif...
Gopal Prasad Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh45
S.R. Nayak, C.J. 1. On 7-3-2005 the fifth respondent issued auction notification for auctioning the right of running the Weekly Bazars, Dainik Hatari (Daily market) and Cycle/Motor Cycle Stand coming under the jurisdiction of the Gram Pan-chayat Chandrapur for the year 2005-2006 (1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006). The petitioner submitted his tender. The right was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23-3-2005. As per the terms of the auction notification, the petitioner had to deposit a sum of Rs. 77,000/- on 23-2-2005 itself. He was not in a position to deposit that sura of money and therefore, he sought time. The fifth respondent initially vide order dated 29-6-2005 extended the time by one week from the date and thereafter again he extended time for a further period of one week on 3-7-2005. In terms of the above extensions of time granted by the fifth respondent, the petitioner was granted time to deposit sum of Rs. 77,000/- before 10th July, 2005, but, the fifth respondent ...
Gopi Ram Vs. Hiralal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT16(CG)
ORDERV.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the award dated 31 -3-2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, in Claim Case No. 35/2004.2. On 22-3-2005, the appellant while working as labour was sitting in the Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. CG 04 ZC 8488 and CG 04 ZC 8489. The said Tractor-Trolley was driven by respondent met with an accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Appellant received injuries who assessed compensation at Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand only) and for recovery of the same, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act.3. Respondent has admitted that he is owner of the Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. CG 04 ZC 8488 and CG 04 ZC 8489. The Tractor-Trolley was being used by him for transportation of Bolder, Murum etc. However, respondent denied the claim of the appellant and pleaded that he has already borne the Medical e...
Akheraj Lunia, Mine Owner and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through S ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh72
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Anr. : (2001)7SCC358 . I am of the considered opinion that the impugned demand notices have to be quashed. The only question that arises for decision-making Is whether the petitioners are entitled to seek refund of the cess paid by them to the State Government in pursuance of the demands raised subsequent to 4 4-1991 with regard to cess collectable prior to 4-4-1991. According to Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel who argued on behalf of the petitioners, this point is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company whereas ac cording to Shri Vinay Harit, learned senior counsel for the Department, this precise question is not dealt with by the Supreme Court and since the petitioners have voluntarily paid the cess in respon...
Manoj Kumar Kurre Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2299
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This revision is heard finally today at the stage of motion.2. The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 29-11-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 286/2005 by Sessions Judge, Ambikapur whereby the appeal preferred against the order, dated 23-11-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board refusing to grant bail to the applicant, was dismissed.3. Brief facts as revealed by the case diary which has been produced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State are that on 6-10-2005 the applicant aged about 16 years, and apparently a juvenile committed rape on Sonkunwar while she was returning from the market to her house, after dragging her to the field and pushing her on the ground. The case diary statements of the prosecutrix as well as her parents Leelavati and Babulal revealed that there was a compromise between the parties due to which no report was lodged about the incident. It further reveals that 2 days after the occurrence since there was a quarrel...
Poly Pack India Vs. M.P. Finance Corporation and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh80
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. Madhya Pradesh Finance Corporation, the respondents herein, in response to an application made by the petitioner, an industrial unit, by its order dated 25-2-1991, sanctioned a loan of rupees three lacs for purchase of machines and construction of buildings for establishing an industrial unit. The petitioner could not repay the loan amount with the interest accrued thereon in terms of schedule of repayment. That led to the Corporation resorting to the procedure provided under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act). The property was brought to sale. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to bring the bidders for purchasing the subject property in the year 1995. Although an offer was received, that was only for a sum of Rs. 2,05 lacs. The pleadings laid before the Court would show that the Board of Directors of the Corporation took a policy decision that the property brought to sale should not be sold for less than Rs. 3 l...
Bansal Academy Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh85
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J. 1. The facts of the case and the legal issues that arise for decision-making in all these writ petitions are substantially similar. Hence, all these writ petitions were clubbed, heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners are the Educational Institutions programming and running number of courses to impart education to the needy students. The petitioner-Institutions situate outside the State of Chhattisgarh. In terms of memorandum of under-standing entered into between the petitioners and Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University (for short 'the University'), the petitionerr Institutions have been recognized and authorized to act as Institutions of Information and Guidance Centres/Study Centres of Institute of Distance Education of the University. In pursuance of the above Memorandum of Understanding, the Registrar of the University sent the guidelines for con-ducting of annual examinations for the academic year 2005 with the...
V.T.P. Constructions Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: [2006]145STC185(NULL)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. In this writ petition, the constitutional validity of Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam') is questioned.2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern of one Shri Krishana Mudliar and it has been executing works contracts for various departments of the Chhattisgarh State Government and others and it is holding commercial tax registration No. 061/RDN/14/2739/02. During the year 2001-02, the petitioner had executed works contracts awarded by Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R;), Division Khairagarh, for which it received payment of Rs. 1,27,115 on which sales tax of Rs. 2,545, being 2 per cent of sum of Rs. 1,27,115, was deducted at source towards the sales tax payable by the petitioner as provided under Section 35 of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner has produced copy of certificate of tax deduction dated April 11, 2001 at source made under Section 35 of the Adhiniyam and the same is marked as annexure P1.3. In support of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »