Chhattisgarh Court April 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.
Dharm Sai and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2713
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-10-2001 delivered by Shri T. R. Burman, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Sessions Case No. 189/2001 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 16-5-2000 at about 10.00 p.m. the prosecutrix aged about 17 years, was returning from village Aara to her home in Hardijhiria. She was accompanied by Manju and Lalsai. On way near Ginamoda the appellants started teasing her. The appellant-Dharam Sai pulled the hand of the prosecutrix. When Manju and Lalsai intervened they were threatened by the appellants. Both Manju and Lalsai went away. The appellants dragged the prosecutrix to a nearby field situated at a distance of about 50 meters. Dharam Sai felled the prose...
Ashok Das and ors. Vs. Ranjana Das and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC336
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2839/2002 of the Court of C.J.M., Raigarhs (changed No. 453/2006 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Raigarh).2. The facts are that respondent No. 1 herein was married to petitioner No. 1 on 25.11.1997. She filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on 5.11.2001 against the petitioners. This complaint case was filed under Sections 498A and 506 (Part-II), I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that after filing of the complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate sent this complaint for inquiry to the police under Section 156, Cr.P.C. and after inquiry, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 498A/34, I.P.C. vide Crime No. 166/2002.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing the proceedings of criminal case on the ground that the proceedings are mala fi...
Hira Industries Ltd. Vs. State of C.G. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh7
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The petitioner, Hira Industries Limited, which is a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 572-Urla Industries Area, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, being aggrieved by the action of the Government of Chhattisgarh and its authorities, the respondents herein, in not releasing the transport subsidy payable to them under the 'Madhya Pradesh Transport Subsidy Scheme', has filed this writ petition.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:The petitioner-Company is engaged in manufacture and production of cement. The petitioner-Company was initially doing its business in the name and style of 'Jai Bajrang Cement Pvt. Ltd.' That name of the petitioner-Company was subsequently changed as Hira Industries Ltd. in the year 1991. The districts of Bastar and Surguja in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh and now part of the newly-formed Chhattisgarh State are industrially most backward districts having mai...
Amit Jogi and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3497
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 24-3-2006 passed Shri Shiv Mangal Pandey, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 whereby the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. filed by Amit Jogi, the applicant No. 1 herein, to add Reginald Jermiah P. W. 85 as an accused, was rejected.2. Brief facts are that the 4 applicants herein along with 25 others are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 120B, 427 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. On the date of filing this criminal revision, as many as 96 witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution. It is alleged by the prosecution that Amit Jogi, the applicant No. 1 herein, hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate prominent N. C. P. leader Ramavatar Jaggi in furtherance of which Chiman Singh, the applicant No. 4 herein, committed murder of Ramavatar Jaggi.3. During trial, Regi...
Afzal Ajmi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2762
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th November 1989 delivered by Shri K. L. Kori, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 212/1987 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376, 1PC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the appellant was working as teacher at the Middle School for girls in Labhandih. The prosecutrix aged about 13 years was studying in Class VI. On 9-8-1986 at 2.45 p.m. she lodged FIR Ex. 3 at P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur stating that on 8-8-1986 at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant hid her school bag in his room. When she asked for it, the appellant told her to get it from the room. As the prosecutrix went to the room, the appellant followed her to the room and holding her hands started fondling her and kissing her cheeks. She resisted but the appellant scolded her to keep quiet. Thereafter, the appellant after undressing her ...
Smt. Gangotri Bai and anr. Vs. Jeevrakhanlal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh88
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. This is the unsuccessful reversioners' /plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment dated 13-12-1994 delivered by Shri Ajit Kapur, 3rd Additional Judge to the District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 13-A/ 94 whereby their suit for possession of the properties described in Schedule A and B situated in village Selood, Tahsil and District Durg and for declaring the sale deed executed by the limited owner i.e. Jyotiki Bai in favour of defendant/respondent and for mesne profits was dismissed.2. It is not disputed that Nangsai was the owner of 33.56 acres of land situated in village Selood. He died in the year 1910. His son Bisram, the last male holder also died in the same year. Jyotiki Bai, widow of Bisram, was thus the limited owner of the suit properties before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Jyotiki Bai executed a sale deed of 29.33 acres of lands and a house mentioned in schedule-A plaint to one Jeevrakhanlal, for a consideration of Rs...
Hariram Vs. Satish Pandey and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4030
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. A short question raised for consideration is as to what is the scope of enquiry Under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on what materials, the Magistrate has to base his order for dismissal of compLaint Under Section 203 Cr.P.C.?2. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein filed a criminal compLaint Under Section 436/34 I.P.C. against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur. This compLaint was filed on 20.11.2004. The allegations in the compLaint are that on 11.4.2004 at about 3 p.m., all the accused persons (respondents herein), in furtherance of their common intention, came to the Badi of the compLainant and caused mischief by putting fire to the straw of paddy (Puwal) of the compLainant, thereby causing damage to the said property. The further allegations are that a portion of verandah was also burnt due to the said act. In support of the aforesaid compLaint case, the compLainant examin...
Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. Smt. Dulari Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh87
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-4-2005 passed by Additional District Judge Dhamtari, in Civil Suit No. 9A/2005 whereby the application filed by appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction, has been rejected.2. Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract and possession inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1675/5 area 0.15 acre with the appellant on 13-10-2004, who after receiving Rs. 11,000/- towards earnest money executed the agreement deed, thereafter, appellant repeatedly requested respondent No. 1 to execute the sale but she avoided it and even when registered notice was sent to her, she refused to accept it. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No. 1 sold the suit land by a registered sale deed to respondent No. 3 on 29-1-2005. Hence, he was also made a party in the suit. A...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gendram Sahu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC566; 2007ACJ1654; AIR2006Chh82
S.R. Nayak, C.J. 1. In this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would place before us two contentions:(i) that the M.A.C.T. has erred in law in recording the finding that the deceased was accompanying the goods; and(ii) that the M.A.C.T. ought to have deducted half of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased for the purpose of computing loss of dependency.2. Having heard learned Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned order and other materials placed before us, we do not find any merit in the above contentions. The M.A.C.T. having appreciated substantive pieces of evidence has recorded the finding that the deceased was accompanying three bags of rice. The above factual finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. could not be condemned for want of legal evidence as perverse.3. It is true that the deceased was unmarried, but, the dependents of the deceased Included his parents, brother and unmarrie...
Gopi Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ247CG
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner was working in the post of Loader from June 1, 1975 to May 20, 1990 in the office of New Rajnagar Colliery, Hasdeo Area, SECL, Tahsil-Kotma, District Shahdol.2. The petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Area Medical Board on April 6, 1990. The service of the petitioner was terminated w. e.f. May 21, 1990 vide dated May 17, 1990 (Annexure R/l). The petitioner did not challenge the said order and accepted the same.3. The petitioner thereafter submitted his application on July 2, 1990 (Annexure P/2), seeking appointment of his wife Smt. Uttara Bai on compassionate ground. The Respondent Coalfield considered application of the petitioner dated July 2, 1990 and granted employment to Smt. Uttara Bai on the post of the General Mazdoor Category-I by order dated July 25, 1992. Smt. Uttara Bai joined the post on September 7, 1992 and has been continuing to work on the said post.4. The petitioner has filed this petition on. August 1, 2003, pr...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›