Chhattisgarh Court February 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.
Samar Singh Vs. V.N. Shukla and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1814
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This matter was placed in the Lok Adalat where learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 along with the officer of the insurance company, submits that there is no likelihood of compromise and the impugned award dated 25.7.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 2001 is just and proper. He further submits that the matter may be decided on merits.2. In view of the Notification No. 4745/A.R./SEC./H.C.L.S.C, Bilaspur dated 13.11.2006 of the High Court Legal Services Committee, issued by order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the case has been received by this Bench, as the insurance company did not agree for the reasonable amount payable to the beneficiary. The matter is taken up for decision on merits.3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.4. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 53,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bil...
Devanand Dubey Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1576
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Since both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-6-2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 359/1998 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 1840/2000 has been filed on behalf of accused appellant Devanand Dubey whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1679/2000 has been filed on behalf of accused appellants Daso alias Pramesh and Dayanand Dubey. Daso alias Pramesh has been convicted under Sections 302 and 450, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for 3 months and 7 years R. I., and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for 3 months respectively. His sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Appellants Devanand Dubey and Dayanand Dubey have been convicted under Section 302 read with...
Sandeep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1942
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-12-2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Appeal No 200/ 2006. The aforesaid criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 2-11-2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur by which an application for grant of bail to the applicant/juvenile was dismissed by the aforesaid Court.2. Against the aforesaid order dated 2-11-2006, an earlier revision vide No. 699/ 2006 was filed on behalf of the applicant, which was heard and allowed by the order dated 28-11-2006 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Sessions Court for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is after this remand order, the Sessions Judge again took up this matter for hearing and passed this order dated 22-12-2006 against which this criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.3. This matter...
United Transport Company and anr. Vs. Smt. Khatoon Begum
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Chh77; 2007(3)ARBLR274(NULL)
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'Act 1940') against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Jagadalpur in Civil Suit No. 4A/ 1984 whereby application filed by the appellant to set aside the award has been rejected and in term of award judgment and decree impugned has been passed.2. Facts stated in brief are that respondent herein filed an application under Section 20 of the Act 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the arbitral dispute. The application was filed on 6-8-1984. After due hearing First Additional District Judge Jagadalpur, vide order dated 11-2-1986 appointed Shri P.C. Jain, Income Tax Practitioner as sole Arbitrator. Pursuant to his appointment, arbitrator proceeded to resolve the arbitral dispute and after due enquiry and hearing, passed an arbitral award and submitted the same to the Court of First Additional District Judge. The Court receive...
Saheblal Chandra and anr. Vs. Bhudayal Chandra and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1340; AIR2007Chh79
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (henceforth, 'the Act, 1988') against the award dated 23-12-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, (henceforth, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 10 of 1993, whereby the application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 has been dismissed.2. Facts briefly stated are that Gopal Prasad Chandra (since deceased) was an employee of respondent No. 1. He was employed by respondent No. 1 to the post of driver of Truck No. MP-26-E-0042 (hereinforth, 'the vehicle'). The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 2. On 1-1-1993 deceased was driving the ill-fated vehicle, the vehicle fell into a field. When the deceased was ploughing the wet soil, he was caught up underneath the tractor and died. Both the appellants who are father and mother in the capacity of legal representatives filed an appli...
Anil Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT54(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 30-5-2001 (P-1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, whereunder punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, having the effect on revision of pay and pension etc. was imposed and the order dated 26-2-2003 (P-2), passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, through the Assistant Director General of Police (Discipline/Complaint), Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in General Category in the Police Department. During his service, the petitioner was awarded a major punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on finding him guilty of misconduct. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29-6-2000 (P-7) contemplating enquiry against him...
State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) and anr. Vs. Chhattisgarh J ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1066]; 2008(1)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. In the facts of the present writ petitions the following common question arises for consideration as under:Whether the provisions contained in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act, 1947') is mandatory even in the case where award granting reinstatement has been stayed by the High Court?2. For proper understanding of the issue, it is necessary to quote the provisions of Section 17B of the Act, 1947. Section 17B of the Act, 1947 reads as under:17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in Higher Courts.--Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1806; 2008(3)MPHT93(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard.2. Brief facts are that on 1-12-1997, a Minibus bearing No. MP-24/C 2614 being driven by respondent No. 3, upon bursting of a tyre, turned turtle causing injuries to the claimant/passengers. The injured passengers/claimants preferred applications for compensation. The learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara passed a common order dated 3-10-2001 and awarded compensation to the victims as under:(a) Claimant-Shyam Sunder, Claim Case No. 1/98 -(Compensation awarded Rs. 25,000/- with interest).(b) Claimant-Ramji, Claim Case No. 2/98 - (Compensation awarded Rs. 3,000/- with interest).(c) Claimant-Smt. Ram Bai, Claim Case No. 14/98 -(Compensation awarded Rs. 92,500/- with interest).(d) Claimant-Chhedi Singh, Claim Case No. 17/98 -(compensation awarded Rs. 4,000/- with interest).3. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer that the ill-fated Mini bus was under a policy of insurance by the appellant on the date of the ...
Urmila Bai and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1705
V.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988') filed by the legal representatives of the deceased/ owner (Dhanna Lal) of the motor cycle involved in the accident, whose claim has been dismissed vide impugned award dated 11.10.2006 by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in the Claim Case No. 104 of 2005.2. Deceased Dhanna Lal was the owner of motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 08-E 5189 (henceforth 'the vehicle'). When Dhanna Lal (since deceased) riding his vehicle was returning to his village, one unidentified vehicle dashed back side of his vehicle, thereby he met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to those. The vehicle was insured with the respondent.3. Legal representatives of the deceased Dhanna Lal filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 for grant of compensation. The respondent objected to the claim and took specific...
Pramod Kumar Mehta and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2063
L.C. Bhadoo, Actg. C.J.1. One of us. Learned Brother (Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha), has referred the following question to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench that is how the matter has been placed before us:Whether a petition filed Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the period of mandated custody of the protective umbrella shall be maintainable even after expiration of the period of mandated custody during the pendency of such application without the applicants being surrendered to the custody? or such petitions would not be maintainable after expiration of the period of protective umbrella opened in favour of the applicants and that shall be dismissed as not maintainable after expiration of the said period 2. In order to appreciate point of reference made by Brother Justice Sinha it is necessary to narrate brief facts leading to making of this reference.3. Applicants namely Pramod Kumar Mehta and Ankit Mehta were apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 330/2006. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »