Chhattisgarh Court December 2008 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.
Smt. Asha Sahu and Tripti Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT102(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The above petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as in both the petitions common question of law is involved for adjudication.2. The petitioners by the instant petition have impugned the transfer policy of Shiksha Karmis contained in Circular of Annexure P- l , dated 27-10-2005 issued by respondent No. 1 whereby superceding earlier guidelines fresh guidelines have been issued for transfers of Shiksha Karmis and it has been decided that the Shiksha Karmis who are transferred on their own request to another Janpad Panchayat shall be junior in their category at the transferred Janpad Panchayat.3. Briefly stated facts in both the petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 30-7-1998 and their services were regularized on 1-7-2002. Both the petitioners were transferred on their request for mutual transfer by Janpad Panchayat Baloda Bazar & Janpad Panchayat Kasdol vide orders dated 21-8-2003 and 24-12-2003 (Annexu...
Smt. Krishna Bai and ors. Vs. Hindustan Steel Limited
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT26(CG)
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 39(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'Act of 1940') is directed against the judgment dated 29-3-1993 passed by the Court of learned 5th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 9-A/93, whereby learned Additional District Judge has allowed the suit of the respondent herein and set aside the learned Umpire's award dated 20-5-1985.2. Facts, in brief, are that original claimant Gulab Bhai had some petty contracts with the Bhilai Steel Plant. Earlier contract dated 19-2-1971 was rescinded with the consent of both the parties and fresh sale order dated 22-4-1972 was communicated by the respondent which was accepted by the original claimant vide his letter of Exh. 21. As per the fresh sale order, the original claimant was to lift agreemented mixed coke of 3000 ton @ Rs. 53.62 paise per ton between 22-5-1972 to 22-4-1973 @ 250 ton mixed coke per month. Grievance of the appellants is that the appellants comp...
Jagdish Prasad Bansal Vs. Mst. Guruwari Bai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT98(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti (henceforth 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 10-A/98, whereby while refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, refund of the advance of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered.2. It is not disputed that the appellant/plaintiff had paid Rs. 20,000/-on 20-6-1997 to the respondent/defendant. It is also not disputed that the document (Exh. P- l ) purporting to be an agreement to sell the land Khasra No. 1298/10 area 0.03 acre and the house situated thereon in Ward No. 12, Sakti (henceforth 'the suit property') to the appellant/plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- was executed by the respondent/defendant and bears her signature. Receipt of Rs. 20,000/- was endorsed by the respondent/defendant on Exh. P-...
Bhawan Sai Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT18(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction under Section 20(a), (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur in Special-0Criminal Case No. 222/1996, vide judgment dated 17-1-1998 for cultivating and having been found in possession of 15 Cannabis plants on 16-8-1996 at Village Birodidand and the sentence of R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergone R.I. for 1 year.2. Brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution case are that on 16-8-1996, upon receiving secret information that the appellant was cultivating Cannabis plants in his Badi in Village Birodidand, Station House Officer of P.S., Sonhat, Baijnath Singh (P.W. 5) accompanied by two witnesses Ramprasad (P.W. 2) and Rampratap (P.W. 3) reached the Badi of the appellant and found that 15 Cannabis plants had grown in Badi. After completing the necessary formalities, Ba...
Jai Prakash Pathak and ors. Vs. Surendra Gendley and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT107(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-5-2004 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 84/2004, whereby the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the Revisional Court against the order of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has directed to register the case against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The order is challenged on the ground that after dismissal of the revision under Section 203 of the Code, the Revisional Court is not competent to pass any direction for registering the case against the applicants. The Revisional Court is only empowered to direct for further inquiry.3. I...
Pushpal Swarnkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1062
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. On a mention being made, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-9-2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Bail Application No. 1291/2008, whereby the Court below while allowing the bail application has imposed a condition upon the petitioner to deposit his Visa & Passport (in original) in the Court at the time of execution of the bail bonds.3. It is submitted that any condition imposing the impounding of passport is not permissible under law and the Court has committed illegality.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also the record of the trial Court.5. By the order impugned, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has admitted the petitioner to bail and also imposed four conditions out of which condition No. 3 reads as follows:(Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.)By imposing condition No. 3 the Court below has directed the petitioner to deposit ori...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›