Chhattisgarh Court February 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.
Sunil Jindal Vs. Bhimsen Toppo and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR482]
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by an award dated 17.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No. 92/W.C. Act/2005/[Non-Fatal] whereby compensation of Rs. 2,99,419/- was awarded.This appeal involves the following substantial questions of law:Whether the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh in Case No. 92/W.C. Act/2005 is liable to be set aside because:(a) for want of medical evidence, the Commissioner was not justified in assessing liability to pay compensation under Section 4 Sub-section (1) Sub-clause (c) (ii) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?(b) Whether the principles of natural justice have been violated because sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence was not afforded to the appellant/employer?2. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned award is liable to be set aside because as mandat...
Hemraj Agarwal Vs. Smt. Bharti and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant No. 1 has impugned the order dated 27-4- 2007 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 110-A/06 whereby learned Civil Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'Code') for amending the written statement to incorporate the counter-claim. The parties in this petition shall be referred to hereinafter as per their status before the Trial Court.2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the purpose of this petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with the averments that they purchased the suit land through registered sale deed on 22-3-2004 and since then their names have been mutated in the revenue record and they are in possession. However, the defendant No. 1 is claiming that he is the owner of suit land and h...
K.P. Sugandh Limited and Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1830; 2008(3)MPHT29(CG)
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. The petitioners of these two writ petitions have questioned the legality, correctness and constitutional validity of the order dated 31-12-2007 passed by the Controller, Food and Drugs Administration and Food (Health) Authority, Chhattisgarh in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act 37 of 1954'). Since both these petitions raise identical issue of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 207/2008 is a limited company. It manufacturers Pan Masala and Gutka which is a chewable Pan Masala blended with tobacco. The Dy. Director, Food and Drugs, the competent authority under the Act 37 of 1954 and the rules framed thereunder, granted licence for manufacturing, stocking and distribution of the product vide order of Annexure P-3 dated 13-2-2007 whereas the petitioner of the W.P. No. 208/2008 is ...
Namina Devi Pradhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Chh40
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 23-8-2007, passed in batch of 117 writ petitions by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. The brief facts are that the appellants/ petitioners and many other similarly situated persons were candidates who appeared in entrance examination for admission to the Bachelor of Education (for short B.Ed.) courses run by the Universities in the State of Chhattisgarh. The entrance examination, commonly called as pre-B.Ed. examination 2007, was conducted by Chhattisgarh Vyaysaik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur. The advertisement as also the prospectus/examination form for the said examination published/issued by the concerned authority would show that the minimum qualification for admission to the B.Ed, course was that the candidate must have passed a three years degree course from a recognized University. The source of this essential qualification was Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the State Governmen...
Mohd. Iqbal Alias Baratu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1835
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr, P.C.'), the accused/appellant has questioned legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-11-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, in Sessions Trial No. 33/2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 10 months and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months, respectively. It was further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Sabina Bano (since deceased) was the wife of the accused/app...
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Etc. Vs. Vishal Agrawal and o ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Chh57
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the subject-matter of the dispute involved in these petition is identical and common questions of law are involved for adjudication of these petitions.2. In Criminal Revision No. 49/07 the report was lodged by Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board') against the non-applicant No. 2 on 31-3-2006 regarding theft of electricity on 23-2-2006 and accordingly, Crime No. 227/06 for the offence punishable under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003) was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Special Judge by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in E. Cr. Case No. 4/06 allowed the application of the non-applicants for the present and discharged the non-applicants with liberty to the Board that it can take proper action in accordance with law.3. In Criminal Revision No. 573/06 on the r...
Prakashchand Parakh Vs. Shankerlal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT40(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. In this second appeal, the unsuccessful defendant is aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts below whereby the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1985 in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1978 by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur for specific performance of the contract was affirmed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/1993.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for determination:(1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the respondents were entitled to a decree for specific performance even when they have not pleaded their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and there was no proper evidence to support?(2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Courts below were justified in holding that the agreement in dispute was to be acted upon and was not nominal as pleaded by the appellant/defendant?3. Both the Courts below have th...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Smt. Lajwanti Devi and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT56(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. By this writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated 12-9-2005 passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2005 whereby the said Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for firstly deciding the issue Nos. 6 and 8 to 10 as preliminary issues.3. It appears that initially the plaintiffs, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and later on, relief of possession was amended. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure P-1. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed his written statement (Annexure P-2) and taking many other grounds he also took the ground of limitation as also valuation vide Para 21 of the written statement by pleading that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation as neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Nos. 2 to 19 were hav...
Ajit Kumar Nirmalkar and anr. Vs. Smt. Puniya Bai Nirmalkar
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Chh52; 2008(2)MPHT54(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard on admission.2. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 1-2-2008 passed by the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Case No. 412/2007, whereby, the said Court rejected the objection (I.A. No. 05) filed by the petitioners/non-applicants contending that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instituted by the respondent through her next friend cannot be prosecuted.3. The brief facts are that the petitioners are sons of the respondent. The respondent-mother filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of monthly maintenance before the Family Court, Durg vide Case No. 412/2007. The application was filed through her next friend namely Hari Shankar Nirmalkar, who is her son-in-law. It was shown that the respondent was not a person of sound mind; therefore, she has filed th...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gaura Singh Nishad and or ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT54(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard on admission.By this writ petition, challenge is made to that part of order dated 30-1-2008 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, in Claim Case No. 24/2007 by which the right of the petitioner to file written statement has been closed by the Tribunal by proceeding under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Rule 10 of the CPC.2. The petitioner is an Insurance Company which has been impleaded as non-applicant No. 2 in the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein. The notice of the claim petition was served on the petitioner-Company on 31-12-2007. Counsel for the Insurance Company caused his appearance on 4-1-2008 and prayed for time for tiling written statement on which a date of 16-1-2008 was fixed. On 16-1-2008, some documents were filed by the claimants and again a lime was sought by the Insurance Company and it was granted upto 30-1-2008. On 30-1-2008, again certain documents were filed by the owner of the veh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »