Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh (intuc) and ors. Vs. Managing Director, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT79(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 9th of January, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, a batch of writ petitions involving a common question of law were allowed by the learned Single Judge.2. The facts briefly stated are as under:The Inspector, Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Korba, passed various orders exercising his powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act whereunder he himself adjudicated the disputes raised by the appellants holding that the concerned appellants were the employees within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the Act read with Section 2 (13) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and they shall be governed by the Standing Order of the Company. The last paragraph of one of such orders dated 6-3-2006 (impugned in W.P. No. 1595/2006) is quoted as under :12. Therefore, in view of discussion made he...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Shyam Sunder Deepak and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT100(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The appellant, Food Corporation of India, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28-10-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 416/2002 as the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 21-12-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been dismissed by the Writ Court.2. The brief facts are that while working as an officiating copyist in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, respondent No. 1 applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-Ill in the petitioner-Corporation. His application, duly recommended and forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, was forwarded by the District Manager of the appellant to the FCI, Bhopal on 18-1-1968. Thereafter, vide office order dated 7-2-1968, he was selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-Ill and was directed to join the Office of Distric...
Santosh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4216; 2008(4)MPHT45(CG)
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Appellant Santosh stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 16th March, 2002 passed by Session Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 117/2001.2. Appellant Santosh has been found guilty of commission of murder of deceased Mahrinbai by causing multiple external injuries by means of a Tangia on 13-06-2001.3. Appellant's conviction is founded on the eyewitness account of Belabai (P.W. 5), daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, whose evidence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9).4. At the trial the capital charge of murder against accused Santosh was sought to be proved on the evidence of Hemlal (P.W. 1), Phutturam (P.W. 2), Kabirdas (P.W. 3), Jagdish Ram (P.W. 4), Belabai (P.W. 5), Mahan Das (P.W. 6), Mukteshwari Puri (P.W. 7), Gautam Lal Sahu (P.W. 8), Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9) and T.S. Baghel (P.W. 10).5. Accused Santosh abjured his guilt and pleaded fals...
St. Vincent Palloti College and Nirmal Vice Provice of Jagdalpur and a ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT89(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the question of law involved in both these petitions is common. However, for the purpose of this order facts, as mentioned in W.P. (C) No. 831/08 are being referred.2. The petitioner college, which is an unaided college and recognized as minority institution by the State Minority Commission, is affiliated to respondent No. 2-University. Respondent No. 2-University is established under the provisions of M.P. Vishwa Vidhyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') and it is also a recognized University under the University Grants Commission. Respondent No. 2 exercising the powers under the Adhiniyam has framed Statute-28, College Code. Case of the petitioner is that provisions of the Statute-28, which are inconsistent with the rights created in favour of the minority institutions, cannot be enforced as against the minority institutions.3. Respondent No. 2-University in the purported ex...
Smt. Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Aasbati Laleshwar Naag and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Chh53
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This civil revision arises out of an order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the District Judge, Ranker in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.6/2006. The learned District Judge has affirmed the order dated 29-4-2006 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Ranker in Succession Case No. 7/2004 granting succession certificate in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, Aasbati, the widow of late Laleshwar Naag. Although the learned District Judge held that Smt. Prem Bai, the mother of the deceased was not entitled to a succession certificate it was directed that the applicant No. 2, Smt. Prem Bai, the mother of Laleshwar Naag would be entitled to her share.2. Admittedly, Laleshwar Naag appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary School, Village Parsoda, Tahsil Charama died intestate at Raipur on 28-3-2004. Non-Applicant No. 1, Aasbati is his legally married wife. Laleshwar Naag had nominated his mother Smt. Prem Bai, applicant No. 2 for receiving the amount of General Pr...
Alka Shukla Vs. Lakhan Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1986
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the other side.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 86 of 2007 whereunder upon failure to adduce evidence, Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 12.2.2008 adjournment was sought by the claimant for adducing evidence. Final opportunity was granted while imposing costs of Rs. 300. However on the date fixed for evidence, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, therefore, the case was fixed on 17.3.2008, i.e., the date for further orders, the case was fixed for evidence of the claimant on 28.3.2008. An application for adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the claimant sta...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Eshwar and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1828; 2008(5)MPHT45(CG)
ORDERD.R. Deshmukh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the insurer.2. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (henceforth 'the Tribunal') has in Claim Case No. 58/06 passed an award dated 31-8-2007, whereby compensation of Rs. 2,39,900/- was awarded in a case of death of one Lilesh Kumar Yadav, who was travelling on the engine of the ill-fated new unregistered tractor (henceforth 'the tractor') to which a trolley was attached. The Tribunal held that since the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose only was being used for such purpose, breach of the conditions of the policy of insurance was not proved.3. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in a case where the deceased was travelling on the engine of the tractor at the time of the accident and died as a result of a fall therefrom, liability to pay compensation could be fastened on the Insurance Company ?4. Under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›