Chhattisgarh Court February 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.
Megh Prasad Vs. BhagwantIn Bai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT91(CG)
T.P. Sharma, J. 1. By this appeal the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the order and decree dated 28-7-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Misc. Case No. 17/2001, whereby learned Additional District Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956').2. The order is challenged on the ground that the respondent who is second wife of the appellant is not entitled for maintenance under the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Court below has committed illegality by awarding maintenance to her.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order and decree impugned as also the record of the Court below.4. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that respondent Bhagwantin Bai was previously married to one Keshav Sahu and the appellant was also married to Kaushilya, and during the subsistence of fi...
Lakshmi Prasad Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT52(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. None present for the applicant. No representation is made.2. None present for non-applicant Nos. 2 to 10, though served.3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant No. 1 and the State/non-applicant Nos. 11 and 12 and perused the revision.4. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-11 -2007 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2007, whereby learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and condoned the delay in filing the appeal.5. The order is challenged on the ground that any appeal filed after the period of limitation should be dismissed in accordance with Section 3 of the Act and before allowing the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Act, opportunity of hearing to the opposite party is sine qua non, but the Court below has not afforded opportunity of hearing to the pres...
Ramdayal Pando Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3893
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Appellant Ramadayal Pando stands convicted Under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R. I. for 7 years respectively by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, (F. T. C), Surajpur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 291/2000 on 19-7-2002.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4-6-2000 at about 12 noon, Umashankar (since deceased) and his brother Sunderlal (PW-6) were preparing to go to forest. Salikram (PW-7) was also there. Umashankar and Sunderlal said that let them take their meals first. When they were entering in their house, the appellant came there, snatched the sickle from the hands of Salikram and started causing injury to Sunderlal (PW-6). This was intervened by deceased Umashankar. He gave one hammer blow on the back of the appellant, on which, the appellant left Sunderlal (PW-6) and attacked on the deceased and caused injury to his neck. The deceased died instantaneously.3. The matter was reported by Ramdin ...
Mahendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Kartik Ram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT55(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants is heard on admission.2. The appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased Om Prakash are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27-11-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 25/2008.3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Om Prakash, aged about 5 years in the motor accident on 4-3-2008, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZC-3513, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants pleaded that Om Prakash was their only son and he would have extended support to them in their old age.4. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation ...
Rupesh Kumar S/O Nischal Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1822
T.P. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-12-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 70/2008, whereby learned Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R. I. for five years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for three months.2. Judgment of conviction is challenged on the ground that without any evidence relating to attempt to commit rape against the appellant the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality.3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30-9-2007 at about 9 a.m. the prosecutrix. aged about 8 years, was playing near the house which was under construction, the accused went near the prosecutrix, took her inside a vacant room, undressed himself and the prosecutrix, lay her ...
Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Jeevan Lata and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT62(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard on admission.2. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31-10-2008 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/2008, whereby, the said Court has restored the application filed under Section 125, Cr.PC, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29-8-2008.3. Shri Jha submits that the Family Court ought not to have exercised such jurisdiction because the proceedings filed under Section 125, Cr.PC are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no provision for restoration of case filed under Section 125, Cr.PC by the concerned Court.4. Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with procedure. Section 10 deals with procedure generally. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 provides that subject to the other provisions of this Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of...
Chhotelal Kewat Vs. Rajmati Kewat (Smt.)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Chh43; 2009(2)MPHT58(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3-4-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2000 by the Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 149-A/1998 by the VIth Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur.2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 149-A/1998 for declaration of title over land Khasra No. 237/2 area 1.00 acre situated in Village Bodri, Chakarbhata, Patwari Halka No. 1, Revenue Circle and Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur on the basis of a Will executed by Shriram on 18-1-1986 in her favour.3. It is not in dispute that Shriram is the brother of Banduram, i.e., the husband of the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant is the son of Dhandu, who was also the brother of Shriram. The Trial Court reached a finding that execution of the document (Exh. P-l) dated 18-1-1986 by Shriram in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was established. However, it held t...
Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Soni Vs. Raj Kumar Soni
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT64(CG)
T.P. Sharma, J.1. The appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 5-5-2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2005, whereby the said Court has passed a decree for judicial separation in a suit filed by the respondent herein for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').2. The respondent has also filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the decree of judicial separation into decree of divorce.3. The appellant/non-applicant and the respondent/applicant are husband and wife, they are governed by the Hindu Law, as such the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.4. The respondent herein has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of physical and mental cruelty committed by the present appellant/non-applicant, before the Judge, Family Court, Korba. Marriage between the parties was sole...
Chintamani Vs. Sapan Kumar Das
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT79(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This is the unsuccessful tenant's second appeal. Civil Judge Class II, Jashpurnagar had, by judgment and decree dated 30-11-1987 in Civil Suit No. 55-A/1987, decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'). The appeal preferred by the appellant/tenant (Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1989) was also dismissed by the Ist Additional Judge to the District Judge, Raigarh by judgment and decree dated 2-4-1990.2. In this appeal, it is not in dispute that in relation to the suit accommodation let out purely for residence, the appellant/defendant is the tenant of the respondent/plaintiff.3. The respondent/plaintiff had, by instituting Civil Suit No. 55-A/1987 on 17-7-1984, sought eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit accommodation, i.e., House No. 203, situated in Kevda Badi, Ward No. 15, Raigarh on the ground that he required the suit accommodation bonafide for residence...
Asha Devi Mahilange (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT47(CG)
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28-12-2006 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority (Election Petition), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in Revenue Case No. 11/A89/21/04-05.2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner (Smt. Asha Devi Mahilange) are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Misda, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa in the election held on 15-1- 2005. According to the birth certificate (Annexure P-l), the date of birth of the petitioner is 15-6-1983 and according to the identity card, issued by the Election Commission of India (Annexure P-2), as on 1-1-2003, the petitioner was 20 years old. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 (Smt. Geeta Bai) filed an election petition against the petitioner for declaration of her election on the post of Sarpanch as null and void and to declare the election petitioner as elected, on thr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »