Chhattisgarh Court December 2007 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.
Abdul Gani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT98
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Cr.M.P. No. 583/07, Cr.M.P. No. 584/07 and Cr.M.P. No. 585/07 preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by this common order as by these petitions the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korba in Criminal Revision Nos. 53/07, 55/07 and 54/07 respectively whereby the revision petitions have been dismissed and orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba rejecting his applications under Section 457 of the Cr.PC for interim custody of the vehicles seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been upheld.2. The facts necessary for deciding the above petitions are that vehicle Nos. C.G. 07-Z.B./1641, C.G. 10-Z.B./1067 and C.G.04-Z.B./1440 were seized by the Road Transport Officer, Korba for the offence under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for brevity 'the Act') on the ground that the same were being plied in...
Lakhan Lal Saraf Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1714
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 4-2-2005 passed in M.J.C. No. 17/04 whereby the District Judge, Bilaspur on a petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1979 (for short 'Code') filed by the defendant/respondent Motilal has commenced the enquiry and directed the respondent to keep his witnesses present on the next date of hearing.2. Brief facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the defendant/respondent filed an application under Section 340 of the Code with an allegation that the plaintiff/petitioner herein obtained a decree dated 12-5-2000 in Civil Suit No. 10-A/99 on the basis of forged agreement exhibited as Ex. P-4 in the said civil suit, as the petitioner has forged the signature of the respondent in the document of Ex. P-4. A specific objection was taken by the respondent/defendant that the signature was forged, however, the said issue was decided against the respondent/ defendant on the ground...
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Shyama Nagvanshi and o ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ770; [2008(117)FLR706]; (2008)IILLJ993CG; 2008(2)MPHT48(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act, 1923') arises out of an order dated 19-4-1996 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No. 7/94 W.C.F., whereby compensation of Rs. 72,548/- was awarded to the respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased Ranjit Singh and against the appellant No. 1/ employer.2. It is not in dispute in this appeal that Ranjit Singh was an employee of the appellant No. 1 and was posted as Grade-C Operator in Churcha Colliery. He was transferred to Katkona Colliery by order dated 14-2-1991 (Annexure A).3. The respondents/claimants alleged in their application for compensation that Ranjit Singh went to join at Katkona Colliery on 4-5-1991 pursuant to the order of transfer passed by the appellants on 14-2-1991. Ranjit Singh died after prolonged hospitalisation on 18-5-1991 after receiving serious inju...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›