Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Shekhar Chouhan Vs. Geeta Devi
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Chh136; 2007(4)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30-12-2006 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea in Civil Suit No. 17-A of 2006 whereby permanent alimony of Rs. 2000/- was granted to the respondent/plaintiff under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1955').2. Admittedly, the appellant was married to the respondent in the year 1977 and had four children from the marital wedlock. It is also not in dispute that the appellant married Sita Devi during the subsistence of the marriage with the respondent and has two children from her. Civil Suit No. 2-A of 89 instituted by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh vide judgment dated 25-9-1990. The appellant has the custody of the children. The respondent lives at her maternal home. The gross salary of the appellant was Rs. 9985.97 in the month of November, 2006.3. The respo...
Kacharu Lal Agrawal Vs. Bhikham Chand Kothari
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT128(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This is the defendant/tenant's second appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1998 by Shri Sharad Gupta, Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, whereby reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit for eviction passed by Civil Judge Class I, Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 39-A/1993 vide judgment dated 17-3-1998, the appeal was allowed granting eviction of the tenant upon termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (henceforth 'the Act, 1882').2. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that the suit accommodation, which is situated in Gandai, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon does not fall within the First Schedule of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act, 1961') and, therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1961 were not applicable to the suit accommodation. It is also not disputed in this appea...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajendra Mourya,
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Chh138
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Heard.2. The short question, which arises for determination in this appeal by the insurance company, is whether in view of the cancellation of the insurance policy prior to the date of accident upon the cheque for payment of premium issued by the insured having been dishonoured the IVth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as `the MACT') was justified in passing an award against the insurance company for payment of compensation while giving it the right to recover the same from the insured.3. It is not in dispute in this appeal that on 13-06-2005, the claimant, while going towards his house on a Luna, was dashed by the Bus and suffered grievous injuries. In Claim Case No. 15/2006, vide award dated 23-09-2006, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 58,381/- against the appellant/insurer. The offending vehicle, i.e., Bus No. CG 10 A/4900 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bus') was driven by respondent No. 2, who was...
Anaal Automobiles Vs. Ashish Kumar Shukla and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1184
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the default as pointed out by the Registry has been removed.2. Heard on admission.3. Appellant owner is aggrieved by the award dated 20.2.2007 passed by Twelfth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (hereinafter referred to as the M.A.C.T.') in Claim Case No. 54 of 2006 whereby learned M.A.C.T. while awarding compensation of Rs. 42,369 in a case of personal injury has directed the respondent insurance company to pay first and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by initiating execution proceedings.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that on 26.10.2004 respondent No. 2 herein possessed a learner's driving licence and was driving motor cycle No. CG-07-L-156.5. It is also not disputed that the claimant suffered personal injuries on account of collision with the aforesaid motor cycle driven by respondent No. 2 herein. The quantum of compensation awarded by the M...
Dashrath and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4248
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences dated 26th July, 2001 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 466/2000, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 323/34,, 325/34 and 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 100/-, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentences and with a further direction to run the sentences consecutively.2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Julus (appellant No. 3) died on 24-9-2003 and no steps have been taken for his substitution, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of this appellant stands abated.3. The case of the prosecution is that appellant Gandhi had taken a loan of Rs. 300/- from the father of the complainant-Vinod Kumar (P.W.-l) one year prior to the date of incident, which took place on 29-8-2000. On the said day at about 2.00...
Kanhaiya Lal Mehar Vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh,
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MPHT20(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This review petition is considered in the Chamber under the provisions of Rule 76(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2005.2. This petition seeks review of judgment and order dated 05.12.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4296 of 1994 on several grounds. The petitioner, basically seeks review on the following ground as stated in para 14 of the review petition. The same is quoted below:14. ...the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the opinion that though the grounds of violation of natural justice pertaining to the conducting of the Departmental Enquiry was pleaded in the petition, it appears that the same was not stressed upon while the petition was being decided and therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the opinion that the said ground can only be considered by the Hon'ble Single Bench and for which the petitioners can have the liberty of filing the Review Petition according to the Hon'ble Division Bench the said ground raised by the petitio...
Laljee Joshi Vs. Bhaiyya Ram Yadav
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Chh142; 2008(1)MPHT45(CG)
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. During the course of arguments on 1-8-2007 Shri Vikrarn G. Tamaskar, learned Counsel for the applicant had prayed that this Court should invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and set aside the order dated 7-12-2001 as also quash the proceedings as being patently without jurisdiction. Before invoking such jurisdiction, learned Counsel were called upon to address on the order dated 7-12-2001 rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code filed by the applicant herein for rejection of the plaint.2. Learned Counsel were heard.3. Admitted facts in brief are as follows:One Laljee Joshi filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bemetara (hereinafter referred to as 'the RCA') under the provisions of the then Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the respondent/tenant Bhaiyyaram on ground of ...
Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Vs. Fagua Sai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2074; [2008(116)FLR1071]; 2008(1)MPHT60(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-7-1988 passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lower Court') in Case No. 99-WC-Fata 1/85 awarding compensation of Rs. 27,165. 60 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till deposit.3. Brief facts are as under:The applicant Fagua Sai being the father of the deceased Dhaneshwar Sai filed an application before the Lower Court for compensation. Pleading in Para 1 of the application is as under:/kus'oj lk; iq= Qxok lk; vukosnd ds fu;kstu esa lgk;d ou ifj{ks= vf/kdkjh] euksjk ds vUrZxr dk;Zjr ,d deZdkj Fkk ftldh e`R;q dk;Z ds nkSjku rFkk dk;Z ls mRiUu nq?kZVuk esa fnukad 1&9&1984 dks gqbZ A nq?kZVuk dk laf{kIr fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS %&e`rd yq[kh igkM+ ds taxy esa lksy dVkbZ ds dk;Z esa dqyh ds :i esa vukosnd }kjk fu;ksftr FkkA fnukad 1&9&1985 dks dk;Z ds nkSjku yxHkx pkj cts lk;a tc o'kkZ gks jgh Fkh rc ...
S.K. Das and ors. Vs. Chhatishgarh Environment Conservation Board and ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4345; 2007(4)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC the petitioners have impugned the issuance of summons against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Complaint Case No. 3850/04 vide orders of Annexure P-3.2. Respondent No. 1-CG Environment Conservation Board (for short 'the Board') filed a complaint vide Annexure P-l for taking cognizance under Sections 37 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act, 1981') read with Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986') and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein alleging therein that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the Directors of respondent No. 3-Company, whereas, petitioner No. 6 is Managing Director and petitioner No. 5 is the Executive Director of the respondent No. 3-Company. Accused persons without obtaining environmental clearance from the Environment & Forest Ministry, Govt. of India have estab...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Vs. Lakhan Lal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1197
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the award dated 6.10.2006 passed in Claims Case No. 46 of 2006 by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (hereinafter referred as the M.A.C.T.)2. Admitted facts are that for the accidental death of Lekhram, aged 15 years on 27.1.2006, the M.A.C.T. awarded compensation of Rs. 1,17,500/-. Tulas Ram, respondent No. 4, was driving the Tractor No. C.G.04/D 0167 to which a Trailer No. C.G. 04 D/168 was attached and possessed a valid driving licence. The Insurance policy covers use of the Tractor/Trailer only for Agricultural and Forestry purposes and covers the risk of the paid driver and/or cleaner. The Tractor/Trailer was owned by Punitram Sahu, Respondent No. 5, on the date of accident.3. Claimants had, in their application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth `the Act'), pleaded that due to rash and negligent driving by Tulas Ram, Lekhram, who was sittin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »