Chhattisgarh Court April 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. Savitri Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT36(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. With consent of the parties, heard finally.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2-1-2008 passed by the respondent No. 2, Additional Collector whereby the application of the petitioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993') has been rejected.3. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Accholi. Up Sarpanch and other Panchas of the Gram Panchayat presented notice of no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority-respondent No. 3 taking cognizance of the above notice, fixed the date of holding a meeting to consider the no confidence motion and appointed respondent No. 4 as Presiding Officer to preside the above meeting.4. On 10-10-2007, 14 members of the Gram Panchayat out of 15 participated and voted in the meeting. Twelve members voted in favour of the motion whereas two members opp...
Satyendra Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Chh3
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by an order dated 29-12-2007 passed in Civil Suit No. 20-A of 2007 by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby on an application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC the suit was dismissed as barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988).2. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant No. 2 are the sons of respondent/defendant No. 1 - Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi, who is the widow of Babulal Dwivedi. A registered sale deed was executed on 11-10-1974 wherein Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi was shown as the purchaser of the suit property. On 11-4-2005. Hemlata Dwivedi executed a sale deed of the suit property in the name of respondent No. 2 and his wife/respondent No. 3. It is also not in dispute that in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2005 instituted by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 against respondent No. 1/Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi f...
Smt. Shashikala Pandey Vs. Ramesh Prasad Pandey
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Chh1; 2008(4)MPHT12(CG)
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Heard.2. On 14-02-2008, Shri B.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Bani W/o Parkash Singh v. Parkash Singh submitted that the order dated 21-07-2006 granting monthly maintenance and expenses of the appeal to the appellant was flouted by the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey, and therefore, prayed that the defence of the respondent should be struck off and the appeal should be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree for divorce dated 2-5-1989 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur.3. Brief facts are that the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey instituted a Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1984 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Judge, Ambikapur for a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife herein on the ground that the appellant herein was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such extent that h...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 9-5-1997, passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 98/96.2. Respondent No. 1/claimant Smt. Madhu Gupta claimed compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs) for the death of her husband - deceased Ashok Gupta in the motor accident on 22-1-1996 when his scooter was dashed by the offending vehicle jeep bearing registration No. MP-24G/0843, resulting in his death on the spot itself. The claimant further pleaded that her husband Ashok Gupta used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from his business.3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle-jeep contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The owner and driver took the plea that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer, on the other hand, pleaded that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence ...
The State of M.P. Vs. Bhairav Prasad Mishra
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT73(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) challenges the validity of the award dated 01.05.1996 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No. 105/I.D.A./90(Ref) whereby removal of the respondent from service was held as illegal and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.2. The indisputable facts are that the respondent was engaged in the establishment of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Korba, as Pump Operator on daily wages basis at village Pauna, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa, in the year 1981. The services of the respondent was discontinued by oral order on 31.12.1988. The operation of the Pump for which the respondent was appointed, was handed over to the Gram Panchayat, Pauna. Engagement of the respondent was for only three months during the summer season as seasonal daily wager, and for the remaining 9 months, the services of the respondent was not required a...
Surendra Singh and anr. Vs. Mangluram Dewangan and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT71(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J. 1. In this Misc. Appeal, the following questions arise for determination:(A) Whether an order dismissing the suit as having been abated for non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff after a summary enquiry as contemplated by Order 22 Rule 5, CPC is appealable ?(B) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Judge and holding that respondent No. 1/plaintiff was entitled to be substituted as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff Prannath ?2. Brief facts are that in Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1996 instituted on 5-8-1989 the sole plaintiff Prannath died during the pendency of the suit on 12-11-1994. The respondent No. 1 Mangluram applied for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC on the basis of a Will executed by Prannath on 10-10-1994, which was got registered on 22-10-1994 by Prannath. The Trial Court after giving an opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence dismi...
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)24VST348(NULL)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Since these three writ petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In sum and substance, it has to be determined as to whether, in these cases, the petitioner(s) (S.E.C.L.) was liable to pay the entry tax under Section 3(1) of the M.P. (C.G) Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, 'the Entry Tax Act') or not ?3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner(s), South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (S. E. C. L, a subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, C. I. L.) is a Government undertaking. The petitioner(s)' company carries on coal mining in various coal fields in the State of Chhattisgarh and is engaged in business of its sale. The National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C.), being set up at Korba, for generation of power, requires coal in a large quantity for which initially Gevra project of the petitioner-company was conceived. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Boar...
Laxman Rao Meshram Vs. Meena Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT104(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This is the tenant's second appeal. The suit for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the accommodation let out solely for residential purpose on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence as also for non-residence was decreed by the IInd Civil Judge Class II, Raipur by judgment dated 17-12-1999 in Civil Suit No. 551-A/1998, which has been affirmed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000 by judgment and decree dated 30-11-2000.2. It is not disputed that the suit accommodation situated in Chirhuldih, Ward No. 35 at Amapara, Raipur was let out to the appellant/defendant solely for residential purpose. Respondent No. 1 is the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was pleaded by them that they were the owners of the suit accommodation, which was let out to the appellant/defendant at a rent of Rs. 400/- per month for residential purposes. In Paragraph 6 of the plaint, it was averred by the respondents/plaintiffs as under:6. ;g...
Smt. Archana Agrawal Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, National Mine ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ456CG
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This petition impugns the validity of (i) memo dated 28-4-1996 (Annexure P/7), whereby the petitioner was called upon to reply to the memo of charge-sheets issued under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of National Mineral Development Corporation (for short, NMDC') Limited by the Vice Principal of BIOP Secondary School, (ii) punishment order dated 2-9- 1999 (Annexure P/8), whereby the petitioner was reduced to lower grade i.e., from Teacher (S-8) to Assistant Teacher (S-4) with a basic pay of Rs. 3106/- + PP 678/- p.m., under the provisions of the Standing Orders of NMDC Limited and (iii) the appellate order dated 16-1- 2000 (Annexure P/11) whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Director (Prodn) and Appellate Authority.2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 14-6-1987 (Annexure P/1) with the condition that for the purpose of conduct, service and disciplina...
Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Dashrath Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT43(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This petition, filed by the Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (for short `BALCO') impugns the order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 33/CGIR Act/A-II/07, whereby the order dated 04.04.2007, passed by the Labour Court, Korba, rejecting the application of the respondent on the ground of delay, was set aside. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the respondent working as Senior Attendant was terminated by order dated 14.08.2004 (Annexure P/2). The respondent preferred a writ petition being No. 2473/2005 on 13.6.2005 in this Court. This Court, on 20.6.2005 permitted the respondent to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Labour Court. The respondent, thereafter preferred an application under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short `the Act, 1960). The petitioner preferred a preliminary objection under provisions of Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »