Chhattisgarh Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satyanaryan Agrawal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR396(NULL)
1. This appeal preferred by the appellant-Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dated March 31,1999, has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess stock found during the course of survey under Section 133A?2. The facts, as projected in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, are that a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on September 7, 1994, and excess stock of 254.98 quintals of dhaniya valuing at Rs. 1,100 per quintal was found in excess. The Assessing Officer (for short 'AO') treating the said stock as undisclosed investment of the assessee...
Albert Tirkey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-24-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT61(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition is heard finally.2. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 7-11-2009 (Anncxure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Raigarh to Bastar.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present place of posting, i.e., Raigarh, the petitioner has joined on 12-6-2009 and within a period of six months, the impugned transfer order dated 7-11-2009 has been passed by transferring the petitioner to a naxalite infested area, i.e., Bastar. The petitioner has already served in a naxalite infested area for a long period and according to the transfer policy/circular of the State Government if an employee has already served in a naxalite infested area he shall be posted in a non-naxalite infested area. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed his reliance upon Section ...
Bauda Ram Alias Dhajiram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-23-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT83(CG)
Pritinker Diwaker, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-1-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 330/2004 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 376(1) and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-under Section 450, IPC plus default stipulations.2. Facts of the case in brief are that FIR (Exh. P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix aged about 15 years (P.W. 1) on 22-7-2004 alleging that on 20-7-2004 at about 12 hours when she was all alone in her house, accused/appellant made an entry thereto, caught hold of her hand, threw her on the ground and after removing her cloths inserted his private part into her private part. While committing the sexual intercourse, the accused/appellant had gagged her mouth due to ...
Zonal Chief Sahara and ors. Vs. Geeta Singh (Smt.)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT58(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agrawal, J.1. Heard on admission.2. This revision arises out of the order dated 9-7-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 15-B/2002.3. Fact briefly stated are as under:4. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,08,156.80. The defendants filed their written statement in which apart from other pleas taken in defence, plea of non-maintainability of suit on account of existence of arbitration agreement has also been taken. Learned Trial Court framed following preliminary issue:D;k okfnuh }kjk izLrqr ;g nkok bl U;k;ky; ds fopkj.k {ks=kf/kdkj esa gS5. Learned Trial Court by recording a finding that neither before or after filing of suit, application for appointment of arbitrator was filed by the defendants, held that the suit is maintainable. Hence this revision.6. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the applicant relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Ors...
Shivaram and anr. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ818
R.N. Chandrakar, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-9-2004 passed by the Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Special Case No. 80/2002, whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted under Section 376 (2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further S. I. for three months.2. The prosecution case as set out in the First Information Report (FIR) is that the prosecutrix namely Kalawati was residing along with her mother in village Kotagahana in the house of one Jugeshwar Choubey. On 3-9-2002 she went to the house of Bramhdeo alias Lilu Yadav (PW/8) to obtain iron press for ironing her clothes. At the same time, at about 2.00 p. m., the appellants along with another person came in a Marshal Jeep and seeing her, stopped the jeep in front of the house of Bramhdeo alias Lilu Yadav (PW/ 8). The accused/appel...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›