Chhattisgarh Court October 2009 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.
Balchand Bharti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-21-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT55(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Cr.PC for grant of regular bail, as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 91/2008, registered at Police Station, Bamhanidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Examination Act.3. This is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail. No other application of this nature is pending before this Court or before the Court below. The application is supported by the affidavit of Biharilal Bharti, brother of the applicant.4. Previous bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits.5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the third bail application of the applicant herein has been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 11-5-2009, but after dismissal of the third bail application of the applicant herein, this Court has gr...
Laxmi Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT62(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Angan Badi Worker on contract basis by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 12th September, 2006 (Annexure P-l). The respondent No. 5, challenging the selection of the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Worker, filed an appeal being Appeal No. 101/B-121/2005-2006 before the respondent No. 3. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 16th March, 2007 (Annexure P-2). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection at the time of notice that this petition is not maintainable as alternative statutory, expeditious remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993').3. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appointment of the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›