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.
Prabhawati Devi and ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1288; 2008(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, (henceforth 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 8-4-1996 passed in Claims Case No. 16/1994.2. The claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased R.K. Ram, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,50,700/- by filing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for his death in the motor accident when on 23-1 -1994 he was dashed by the offending vehicle tempo bearing registration No. MP 24T 0053, resulting in multiple serious injuries to deceased R.K. Ram, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 26-1-1994. The claimants further pleaded that deceased R.K. Ram used to earn Rs. 4,900/- per month as salary from Bhilai Steel Plant and was also getting bonus of Rs. 4,040/- per year.3. The owner, driver and insurer of t...
Dr. Omprakash Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT66(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. Being aggrieved by the non-action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition, whereby the petitioner was not granted promotion.2. The indisputable facts, in nut-shell, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in Govt. Kamla Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 7-1-1985 (Annexure P-1) on temporary ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, vide order dated 31-8-89 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the post of Laboratory Technician. The State Government declared the post of Laboratory Technician under the Higher Education Department to be deemed as 'Teaching Post' and the age of superannuation of the Laboratory Technician was increased to 60 years, in lieu of 58 years by memo dated 6-3-1997. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 26-4-1999 (Annexure P-8) for promotion on any higher post. This representation was rejected vide order dated 10-...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Sant Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Chh44
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4-4-1989 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 9-B/1985 reversing the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1988 passed by the First Civil Judge Class II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 80-B/1984 whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/- was dismissed.2. Although, appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law, it appears that this second appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 102 of CPC as it stood on the date of filing of appeal i.e. 21-10-1989 and Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to argue. Shri G. D. Vaswani, learned Government Advocate was requested to act as amicus curiae.4. Arguments were heard.5. Section 102 of CPC as it stood on 21-10-1989 i.e. the date of filing of second appeal was as ...
Surendra Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT5(CG)
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Appellant-Surendra Singh has filed this writ appeal against the impugned judgment dated 9-5-2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2867/2007.3. The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:In view of the facts and grounds as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:7.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28-4-2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chief Executive Officer - Respondent No. 3.7.2. That, the respondents be directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner on his present post.7.3. Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.4. The appellant/petitioner thus in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 28-4-2007 (Annexure P-3 in the writ petition) whereby the appellant/petitioner was placed under...
Gulabchand Soni Vs. Bankelal Soni
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard finally.2. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC by order dated 22-11-2001 passed in M.J.C. No. 34/1997 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Durg.3. Brief undisputed facts are that the appellant/defendant had engaged Counsel to defend him in the Civil Suit No. l-B/1995 for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the basis of a written contract dated 28-11-1991. Adjournments were sought by Counsel for the appellant/defendant for filing written statement. On 11-8-1996 Counsel for the appellant/defendant did not appear. The Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant/defendant and pronounced ex parte judgment on 21-2-1997.5. The appellant/defendant moved an application on 8-8-1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that he learnt about the ex parte judgment and decree for the first time on 28-7-1997. An application under Section 5 of the Limitat...
Mansoor Ali Alias Munshi Vs. Leelavanti Alias Leelabai and Anil Gandhi
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT15(CG)
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. In this appeal by the landlord, the following substantial question of law arises for determination:Whether in view of the admitted position that it was a composite tenancy, the Court below committed an error of law in splitting up the tenancy and granting a decree to the landlord under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and while negativing his case under Section 12(1)(f) of the said Act?2. In this appeal, it is not disputed that the appellant/landlord had filed Civil Suit No.7-A/1996 before the Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari for eviction of the respondents/tenants from the suit accommodation, ground floor of which was let out for non-residential purpose and the first floor for residential purpose. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on both counts, i.e., under Section 12(1)(e) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth `the Act'). Being aggrieved, the respondents/tenants preferred Civil Appeal No.112...
Sharad Chand Malu (Jain) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT118(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the petitioner's highest bid, submitted by the petitioner in the open auction held on 22-2-2000, for auction of open land of old Kanji House, bearing Khasra No. 1273, area 3784 square feet, situated on the way of Nehru Chowk to Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the auction proceedings were complete but the respondent No. 3 did not complete the auction by accepting the petitioner's highest bid for sale of the land in dispute. The petitioner submits that on account of the internal dispute amongst Councilors of the Nagar Palika, the open auction held on 22-2-2000 could not be given effect to and no person was allotted the said land.3. The petitioner has filed this petition on 31st January, 2008 after about 8 years of the date of auction i.e., 22-2-2000. On query, as to how such a belated petition can be entertained, particularly wh...
Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. Jawahar Prasad and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR475]
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. In this appeal filed by the employer, who is aggrieved by the award dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower Court'), the following substantial questions of law arise for determination:(i) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(b) & (c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the absence of medical evidence to prove the nature and the extent of disablement suffered by the workman?'(ii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the accident occurred when the process of loading and unloading of shellac had stopped?'(iii) 'Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding penalty under Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 without giving a reas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›