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.
Prashant Dave Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT22(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order dated 24-9-2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 123-A/2006, whereby the said Court has dismissed his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. The brief facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff, claiming himself to be a tenant, filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendant/respondent be restrained from interfering with his possession over the suit shop and she may also be restrained from illegally evicting him from the said shop.4. Earlier, the petitioner has also claimed lor temporary injunction, but his claim for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court and ultimately, the writ petition filed under Ar...
Rajmati and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT59(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 2-11-1999 passed in Claim Case No. 25/1998.2. The claimants, unfortunate mother, step mother and younger sister of deceased Dilesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 17-2-1998 when the cycle on which he was travelling as a pillion-rider was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration number MBT-9386 resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased-Dilesh Kumar, who was aged about 22 years, used to earn Rs. 100/- per day.3. The driver of the offending vehicle-truck did not contest the claim and was proceeded exparte before the Tribunal. The owner and insurer of the truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner took the plea that t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nathaniyal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT82(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 1012/2000 (application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal).2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant/Insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.3. Therefore, LA. No. 1012/2000 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.4. Learned Counsel for the parties are heard on admission.5. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 17-9-1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpurnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 13/97.6. As against the compensation of Rs. 12,30,000/- claimed by the claimant-Nathaniyal for the death of his son Kuldeep Minj in the motor accident on 11-12-1997, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,27,500/- to the claimant.7. In this appeal the appellant-Insurance Company is mainly challenging t...
Smt. Pramila Bai Vs. Vakil Ahmad and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT62(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 7-8-1997 passed in Claim Case No. 63/1996.2. Claimant-Smt. Pramila Bai, widow of deceased Pran Dewangan claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- for the death of her husband in the motor accident on 21-4-1996 when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MP 23 D 7186, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimant further pleaded that her husband Pran Dewangan used to earn Rs. 4000/- per month as cloth merchant.3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle truck did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex pane before the Tribunal. The insurer of the truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the ground th...
State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Nankiram Dewangan and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2488
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. The State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-9-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jangir, in Criminal Case No. 493/2005.3. The petition is barred by limitation of 405 days and I.A. No. 1/08 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition.4. The brief facts are that charges were framed under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 447 of I.P.C. against the respondents on account of an alleged incident which took place at about 2.00 p.m. on 8-11-2001 in village-Pamgarh. The allegations are that they abused the complainant namely Dushyant Kumar (PW-2), threatened him and also demolished the wall, which was being constructed on the directions of the complainant. The complainant claims that the wall was being constructed on his own land and such action of the respondents was punishable under the aforesaid Sect...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bodali Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2213
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Two appeals M.A. (C) Nos. 1243 and 1244 of 2007 by insurance company and two cross-objections for enhancement of compensation by the claimants filed therein and two appeals filed by the owner, M.A. (C) Nos. 1292 and 1271 of 2007, arising out of Claim Case Nos. 10 and 14 of 2007 are being disposed of by this common order.2. Admittedly, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short 'the S.E.C.L.') was, on the date of accident, i.e., 21.10.2005, owner of the truck No. CG 16-A 0651, a goods carriage (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck'). It had permitted the truck to be used for taking the dead body of the father of one of its employees, i.e., Shyam Bihari for cremation. The truck was being driven by the respondent Shankar Das (henceforth 'the driver'). After cremation, on return Ranjan Kumar Sahu, aged 22 years and Sanjay, aged 23 years were being carried in the truck by the driver. The truck dashed against the bridge and turned turtle. Both Ranjan Kumar Sahu a...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neetu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT36(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant is heard on LA. No. 1 (application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal).2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.3. Therefore, I.A. No. 1 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant is heard on admission.5. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 11-5-2007, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 80/2006.6. As against the compensation of Rs. 30,35,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Umashankar Dubey, for his death in the motor accident on 19-7-2006 when the bus bearing registration number CG07-ZA-0395, in which he was travelling met with an accident due to the rash and negli...
Ashok Kumar Bhosley Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT88(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of the communication dated 15-11-2007 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was informed that the decision on his representation dated 14-11-2007 would be taken after the receipt of the departmental enquiry report. The petitioner sought for a further direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join the post and further payment of back wages with interest.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is an Assistant Grade-II employee, working in the office of the Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 9-10-2006 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that 43 original forged challan, with regard to the payment of monthly tax by the owner of the passengers vehicle, were missing from the office. The petitioner was served a charge sheet on 15-12-2006 (Annexure P-2)....
Radhelal and ors. Vs. Padumlal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 24-1-2008 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Sakti in Civil Suit No. 220-A/2002. It appears that by the said order, the Trial Court has closed the rights of the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence after rejecting their application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the main ground taken by the Trial Court is that many adjournments were given to the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence, but since they could not produce their witnesses, no further opportunity is to be given to them, which is not in accordance with law. He submits that in fact, the Trial Court would have seen the cause shown by the plaintiffs for taking adjournment on a particular day and it should not have gone into the circumstances prevailing beyond the date on which...
Rajani Bhushan Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT69(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This petition impugns the order dated 26-11-2005 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been denied retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner had not served the qualifying service of twenty years without break.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (English) in Government Girls College, Raigarh, on ad hoc basis on 5-9-1983. Thereafter, in continuation he was appointed in the same capacity in Government Degree College, Pathalgaon, on 8-1-1985 on ad hoc basis. The Madhya Pradesh Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment Rules, 1986 came into force for regularization of the ad hoc employees on 27-9-1995. The petitioner, being aggrieved by non-regularisation of his services on the post of Assistant Professor (English) filed the petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1949 of 1987. On creation of the State Administrative Tribunal, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »