Chhattisgarh Court April 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.
Bhikham Chandrakar Vs. Amar Nath Tamrakar
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT31(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard on admission.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 28-8-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2006 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (CG) by which learned ASJ has partly allowed the appeal of the applicant and while confirming the conviction dated 4-2-2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reduced the quantum of sentence from 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 51,000/- to sentence till rising the Court and fine of Rs. 55,000/-. It was further directed that out of Rs. 55,000/-, 51,000/- shall be paid to the son of the complainant (since complainant has died during the pendency of appeal) and rest of the amount shall be paid to the State.3. The brief facts are that the complainant-Amarnath had filed a complaint under Section 420, IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Trial Court inter alia pleading that on 3-3-1998, he had given Rs. 51,000/- to the applicant as the amount of ...
Lambodar Alias Parmeshwar Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2586
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-6-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sakti, in Sessions Trial No. 5/2001, whereby the learned A.S.J., after holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(f). I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months; R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year respectively, with an order to run the sentences concurrently.2. The brief facts are that on 3-3-2000 at about 15.30 hrs., Ku. Ranu Chandra, a minor girl aged about 10 years, was returning to her house after answering the call of nature. On the way, the appellant met her and gave her some sweets and thereafter on the...
Chetan Bharti Vs. Premlal Dewangan
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT72(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-7-2006 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 48-A of 2003 whereby while refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract dated 3-9-2002 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, it ordered refund of advance of Rs. 70,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff which included interest of Rs. 6,300/- and costs of goods purchased worth Rs. 3,700/- by the defendant on credit from the plaintiff.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 48-A of 2003 for specific performance of contract dated 3-9-2002 for sale of the suit house by the respondent. It was alleged that on 3-9-2002 the defendant agreed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff and received an advance of Rs. 60,000/-. The Ekrarnama was executed by the respondent/defendant acknowledging receipt of Rs. 60,000/-. It was mentioned in the agreement that if the appellant/defendant could not make arrangement for m...
Pramod Kumar Mehta and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants. It relates to Crime No. 330/2006, registered at Police Station, Jamul, District Durg (CG) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of the IPC and Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.3. The brief facts are that on 4-9-2006, a team of Electricity Board raided the premises of the applicants known as M/s. Kankai Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bhilai. On inspection, it was found that there was tempering in the seal of the meter and ultimately, by applying necessary methods, the team assessed theft of about 9 lacs units of electricity by the concern of the applicants and ultimately, they raised a demand of Rs. 2,13,20,845/- and simultaneously, a First Information Report was also lodged.4. Apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, the applicants, who are the Directors of the aforesaid concern...
Kuleshwar Alias Raju Vs. Firanta Sahu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ903; AIR2007Chh72; 2007(3)MPHT82
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.1. Both the appeals have been arising out of common award; therefore, both of them are taken together for hearing and disposal.2. First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Link Court at Gariyaband (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 17-7-2006 passed in claim case No. 42/2006 allowed compensation of Rs. 2,26,000/- in favour of claimants against non-claimants No. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved claimants have filed appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') for enhancement of the compensation and also questioning the exoneration of Insurance Company from payment of compensation amount. Owner of the vehicle/non-claimant No. 2 also preferred an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation and exoneration of Insurance Company /non-claimant No. 3 from reimbursement of the compensation amount.3. Briefly stated facts are that on 9-9-2005 Kalyan Sahu (since deceased...
Alok Nigam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Chh81
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. As there was difference of opinion in the order dated 19th December, 2006 between Hon'ble the then Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh on the question of maintainability of these P.I.L. (s), therefore, in the light of above difference of opinion, this reference has been made for consideration and decision on the following issue by the Full Bench constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice:Since we differ on the question whether in view of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of T.N. Godavarman Thirimulpad v. Union of India and Ors. dated 10th April 2006, reported in : AIR2006SC1774 , the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the cases.2. Shri M.L. Verma, and Shri A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel, argued that this Full Bench is required to answer the reference to the extent of maintainability of these writ petitions as PIL in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court dated 10th April 2006...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›