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.
Balak Ram @ Baul Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT85(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Appellant Balak Ram @ Baul stands convicted under Section 302, IPC for commission of murder of his wife, Jakni Bai, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 68/2002 on 23-10-2002.2. Deceased, Jakni Bai, was resident of Village Kedma. She was married to appellant, who was resident of Village Jivualiya, which is at a distance of 1 1/2 km from Village Kedma. On 2-11-2001, the deceased came to her parents' place in Village Kedma at about 10-11.00 a.m. for taking whey (Mathah), where she was retained by her mother. The allegations are that in the evening at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant came there and assaulted the deceased with hands, fists and chappel (slipper). She sustained some external injuries. Her two teeth were uprooted. This was witnessed by the mother of the deceased namely Padwaien Bai (P.W. 3). Manta Ram (P. W. 2), brother of the deceased, was not in the house on 2-11-...
Jagannath Gupta Vs. Awadh Ram and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ660CG
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. In this appeal by the appellant/workman under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') following question arises for determination:Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation?Brief facts are that on February 20, 1997 the appellant/workman, who was employed as a driver of the respondent No. 1 in Truck No. M.O.T. 3233 met with an accident due to sudden failure of brake. The right leg of the appellant/workman was amputated near the ankle joint. The appellant/workman preferred an application under Section 10 of the Act for compensation on March 13, 2002 before the. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (henceforth 'the Commissioner').2. By the impugned order dated September 12, 2007 passed in Case No. 76/W.C. Act/2002 Non Fatal, the Commissioner dismissed the application solely on the und of limitat...
Sudha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT97(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.2. The petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Ayurvedic Health House, a small scale industry, engaged in manufacturing Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs. The respondents vide their notice of Annexure P-6, dated 5-2-2008, invited rates for the drugs from the manufacturers. The rates were to be submitted in the 'Rates Contract Form' (Annexure P-7). The petitioner's offer for some medicines was confirmed by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-8, dated 26-5-2008. The rates contract executed with the successful bidder is valid upto 31st March, 2009. Respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 3-6-2008, issued orders for supply of medicines as detailed in Paragraph 8.4 of the petition. The supplies were to be made within a period of 45 days. The petitioner, after manufacturing entire bulk of medicines, dispatched the ordered drugs to the respondents, however, the supplied drugs were not accepted by the respondents and...
Bhagwan Prasad Kushwaha and ors. Vs. Narayan Prasad Kushwaha and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT73(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners/defendants impugn the order dated 4-1-2005 (Annexure P-5), whereby the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 was declined to be accepted on the ground that the same have been filed beyond the prescribed time.2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 3-9-2003 (3-8-2003) (Annexure P-l). The defendant No. 4 caused his appearance on 7-4-2004. Notices were served for appearance on 29-10-2003. The last date for filing of the written statement was given on 7-4-2004. As the defendants/petitioners could not file their written statement, the case was fixed on 15-5-2004 for hearing. On 15-5-2004 the petitioners/defendants made an application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') along with their written statement for taking the written statement o...
Rajesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2559
T.P. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-3-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 470/2001 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 3000 respectively, with default stipulations.2. The Judgment is challenged on the ground that the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above without there being any cogent and reliable evidence available on record.3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14-10-2001 between 9 and 10 p.m. when injured Jaswant Yadav (PW-4) went for having tea, on the way accused/appellant met him and asked for chillum. On refusal by the injured, the accused/appellant started abusing him and then injured went home. T...
M.D. Shrivastava Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT73(CG)
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The appellant/petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 12-11-2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6297/2008, whereby, his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.3. The appellant was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 9th october, 1961. The gradation list was published on 1-4-1996 but name of the appellant was not mentioned in the gradation list. According to the appellant, this was a mistake on the part of the State Authorities, due to which he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Principal which was done vide order dated 1-1-1999. The second promotion list was also published on 7-4-1999, but, his case was not considered at the time of second promotion also on account of non-mentioning of his name in the seniority list which was again a mistake on the part of the respondents. The appellant preferred a representa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›