Chhattisgarh Court June 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.
State of Chhattisgarh and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalawati Lama
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT1(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the order dated 28-2-2006 passer by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 322/2006 whereby and whereunder it has been held that the petitioner who was working on the post of Public Health Tutor, comes under the definition of teacher and she was entitled to continue on said post till the age of 62 years.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Woman Health Visitor and subsequently she was promoted to the post of Public Health Tutor vide Order No. 9/Nursing/Cell-1/95/797, dated 08-02-1995. In the year 2005, she was working as Public Health Tutor in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (QMS), Bilaspur. She was served with a notice dated 22-11-2005 that as per entry of her date of birth in the service records i.e., 04-02-1946, she would be superannuated on 28-02-2006 after attaining the age of 60 years. It is at that stage, the petitioner filed the writ petition and challenged the vali...
Bharat Kumar Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT75(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as in all these petitions the common question is involved for adjudication. However, W.P. (C) No. 2356/08 is taken as a leading case and facts of this case are dealt with in this order.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 issued an auction notice dated 13-1-2007 (Annexure P-6) in the newspaper for sale of 29 plots by public auction (17 plots of HIG Group & 12 plots of MIG Group). The petitioners participated in the auction held on 31-1-2007 and they were declared highest bidders for Plot Nos. MIG 26, 20, 22, 23 respectively. The reserved/upset price was fixed at Rs. 3,64,000/-, whereas, bids of the petitioners were at Rs. 4,92,000/-, Rs. 4,60,000/-, Rs. 4,99,000/- and Rs. 4,91,000/- respectively. The Mayor-in-Council of respondent-Corporation accorded approval to the offer of the petitioners on 19-3-2007 vide Annexure P-3, which was subsequently approved by the G...
Ramkeshra Alias Rameshwar Yadav and Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3669
T.P. Sharma, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1269/2003 filed by Ramkeshra alias; Rameshwaf, 1333/2003 filed by Devnarayan, 97/2004 filed by Guddu alias Ramsevak and 317/2004 filed by Dunraun alias Shiv Kumar are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 18-11-2003 & order of sentence dated 19-11-2003 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 273/2001, therefore, same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The aforesaid criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18-11 -2003 & order of sentence dated 19-11-2003 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 273/2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants, namely Ramkeshra alias Rameshwar, Devnarayan, Badna alias Ram Badan. Tula alias Tulwa, Ramdhani alias Ram, Shiv Kumar alias Pukar, Guddu alias Ramsevak and Sunmun alias Shiv Kumar guilty for commission of offence under Secti...
Smt. Santoshi Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT20(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Heard the petitioner on I.A. No. 2, application for taking documents on records.2. Not opposed. Allowed.3. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has questioned the legality, validity & correctness of the order of Annexure P-1, dated 14-9-2006, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby election petition of the respondent No. 2 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Act of 1993') has been allowed and election of the petitioner to the post of Member, Janpad Panchayat, Katghora has been set aside.4. Petitioner was elected as member of Janpad Panchayat, Katghora from Constituency No. 18, defeating the respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 presented election petition under Section 122 of the Act of 1993 on 10-2-2005 on the ground that the petitioner had given birth to third child namely Ku. Renuka, on 12-9-2001. She had filed her nomination paper deliberately suppressing the above fact....
Shariq Ahmad Vs. Sundar Lal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT5(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1-3-2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal, Family Court, Durg in which the learned Family Court allowing the application of the applicant/respondent herein has held that to decide whether the respondent/applicant is the son of the petitioner/non-applicant, conducting Deoxyribonucleic Acid test (for short 'DNA') is necessary. Respondent/applicant has been further directed to deposit the account payee draft payable to the Director, CDFD, Hyderabad for taking further action for conducting proceeding for DNA test.3. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of routine and only in deserving cases such direction can be given. In the first round of litigation between the same parties the petitioner by way of W.P. (c) No. 1010/07 had challenged the order d...
Jawaharlal Gopal Vs. Member Judge, Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR111]; (2008)IIILLJ1033CG; 2008(4)MPHT8(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. In spite of notice received by the respondent No. 2 on 31-7-2007, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the matter. Thus, this matter is being considered without hearing the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Appeal No. 521/MPIR Act/96, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service without back wages. The petitioner is challenging denial of back wages in this petition.3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Assistant with the respondent No. 2. His services were terminated on 9-5-1991. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 31(3) of the then M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in Labour Court, Raipur. The Labour Court by order dated 21-9-1996 dismissed the application of the petitioner. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the r...
S.K. Tigga Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT42(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction for quashing of the/charge-sheet dated 06-09-2003 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 03-09-2001 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the pensionery benefits of the petitioner have been withheld on account of pendency of enquiry against the petitioner.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime) and posted at Janjgir Champa. The petitioner was the investigating officer in respect of Crime No. 367/2000 registered against the report of the complaint made by one Shobharam on 23-10-2000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while framing the charges under the provisions of Section 325/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), in Criminal Case No. 572/01 on 03-09-2001 (Annexure P-3), observed that the investigation was suspicious. A copy of the same was sent to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh.3. On the basis o...
Gaukaran Singh and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT47(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The above petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the point involved in all these petitions is same.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the owners of agricultural lands situated at Village Sonadih, Gudeliya, Dhabadih and Mopka.3. Respondent-Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, (for short 'the respondent-Company') has a cement plant at Village Sonadih, Tehsil Baloda Bazar. The Company submitted an application dated 16-5-2006 to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Convener, State Industrial Promotion Board, Government of Chhattisgarh stating therein that they have taken a decision to establish a rail link between their Sonadih Plant & Nipaniya Railway Station at their own expenses. The land required by the Company consists of private land and Government land and therefore, immediate step for acquiring the entire land falling in the alignment of proposed rail link was requested. In all ...
Mohd. Riyaz Khan and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3453
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that they earned their livelihood through cattle trading. They used to purchase cattle from various cattle markets to sell them at weekly market Surajpur. The petitioners purchased 255 oxen from the various weekly cattle markets in the month of December, 2003 and proceeded for Village Maanpur with the purchased oxen. They stayed at Village Mohanpur in the intervening night of 28th and 29th December, 2003. At about 1.00 a.m., mob of 250 to 260 persons under the leadership of respondent No. 7 and also accompanied by respondent No. 6-S.H.O. of Police Station Ramanujnagar, reached there and charged the petitioners that they were taking the cattle for the purposes of slaughtering. The above persons were claiming that they are members of the ruling political party of the State and they shall not allow slaughtering of animals as it is an offence. The petitioners denied that the cattle were being taken for slaughtering a...
Manoj Kumar Devangan and ors. Vs. Subroto Sahu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3677
ORDER1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2007, application for taking additional affidavit on record.Not opposed.The application is allowed. The affidavit is taken on record.Also heard on preliminary objection to the maintainability of the contempt petition and objections to the framing of charges.2. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 to 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful violation of the ex parte order dated 19th of October, 2005 passed in W.P. No. 4943/2005.3. Grounds of the petition are that the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on the post of peon, chowkidar and clerk in Madhya Pradesh Adivasi and Vitt Vikas Nigam (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'M.P. Nigam') in the year 1995-96. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Vitta and Vikas Nigam was not continued in the State of Chhattisgarh and in its place, Chhattisga...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›