Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Purushottam @ Pichharu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 19-4-2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 270/2004 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhokta and Ors.) whereby the applicant herein was, in exercise of powers under Section 319, Cr.PC, impleaded as a co-accused for an offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.2. Brief facts are that Bhokta and six others were facing trial for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in Sessions Case No. 270/2004 for committing rioting and murder of Phuleshwar @ Feku in furtherance of common intention of their unlawful assembly on 7-3-2004 in Village Belkharikha, P.S. Darima. FIR was lodged by Binesh Marawi (P.W. 1) against the aforesaid accused persons. The applicant herein was not named in the FIR as also in the statement under Section 161, Cr.PC by...
D.S. Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated 18-5-1999 passed in Original Application No. 739/1988 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein assailing the order of the State of Chhattisgarh, dated 2-8-1986 has been dismissed holding that the claim is barred by limitation. The correctness of the said opinion is contested in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. This case need not detain the Court for long. The facts are startling and are totally against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Food Procurement Inspector in the Government Service vide order dated 17-4-1949. Later on, the said post of Assistant Food Procurement Inspector was abolished and all the Assistant Food Procurement Inspectors of the Food Department were declared surplus. However, the Government of C.P. an...
Nirmal Sinha Vs. Lalsai Khunte and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Chh139
ORDERVijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by calling in question the election of respondent No. 1 as Member of Legislative Assembly from Malkharauda constituency No. 38 (henceforth 'Constituency') of the Chhattisgarh State Assembly which was held on 1-12-2003 and the result of which was declared on 4-12-2003.2. Election Commission of India by a notification dated 7-11-2003, notified the election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh inviting persons to submit their nomination papers between 7-11-2003 to 14-11-2003. For scrutiny of nomination papers 15-11-2003 was scheduled and last date for withdrawal of candidature was up to 17-11-2003. The election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh wherein 'constituency' exists was fixed for 1st December, 2003. Including petitioner respondent No. 1 to 7 and one candidate whose nomination paper ...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. R.C. Varma and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT48
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. The 1st respondent having served in the Water Resources Department as Sub-Engineer, retired from service on attaining age of superanuation with effect from 30-4-1998. After his retirement, the Department, on the ground that the first respondent's pay was wrongly fixed by administrative clerk in the year 1980 while extending Selection Grade to the 1st respondent, by its order dated 4-9-1998, sought to recover sum of Rs. 1,07,267/-, being excessive payment made to him due to wrong fixation of his salary in the year 1980. When that action of the Department was assailed before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short 'the Tribunal'), in Original Application No. 896/199, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the pay of the 1st respondent was wrongly fixed in the year 1980. Nevertheless, the Tribunal took exception to the action of the Department to recover the excess amount from the pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner on hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›