Chhattisgarh Court May 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.
Doman Sahu Vs. Manohar Sahu and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Smt. Somshukla Sarkar, learned Counsel for the appellant is heard on admission.2. Appellant Doman Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19-1-2006, passed in Claim Case No. 14/2005.3. As against the compensation of Rs. 12,80,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant Doman Sahu, a boy aged about 12 years through his father Harilal Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by the claimant boy Doman Sahu in the motor accident on 31-8-2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.4. Smt. Somshukla Sarkar, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only, though the injurie...
Leelawati Bai (Smt.) Vs. Rajendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 18-1-1999 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 132/98 affirming the order of dismissal of the complaint exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions dated 27-3-98 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 560/96.2. The order is challenged on the ground that the provisions for examination of all witnesses proposed for examination in accordance with Proviso to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session is not mandatory.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Court below.4. The present petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 306 read with Section 34 and 506-B of the IPC which is exclusively triable by the Co...
Gulab Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT1(CG)
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Appellants Gulab Sahu and Smt. Mithilesh Sahu stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC with sentences of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide impugned judgment dated 2-5-2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg in Sessions Trial No. 318/2002.2. Appellants Gulab Sahu and Smt. Mithilesh Sahu have been found guilty of causing those injuries on Smt. Mungabaion 2-8-2002 which resulted in her death on 30-8-2002.3. The prosecution case as disclosed by deceased Mungabai in her dying declaration (Exh. P-14) is that appellant No. 2 Smt. Mithilesh Sahu, daughter-in-law of deceased Mungabai and wife of Rohit Kumar (P.W. 3) developed illicit relationship with appellant No. 1 Gulab Sahu which was deprecated by deceased Mungabai time and again. In this background, the appellants on 2-8-2002 when deceased Mungabai was busy in worshipping, caught hold of her and appellant Gulab Sahu tried to press her neck. Deceased...
Laxmi Bai (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT68(CG)
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 16-5-2005 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur in Revenue Case No. 5/A-21/2004-05.2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner (Smt. Laxmi Bai) is widow of Barjo Gond. According to the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali, dated 5-1-2004, Reju had two sons, i.e., Govind and Dayaram. Govind had one son Barjo Gond. Dayaram had three sons, namely Chamra, Chamroo and Karoo. Barjo Gond died issueless. The three sons of Dayaram, namely Chamra, Chamroo and Karoo are dead. Balakram (respondent No. 4) is the son of Chamra, Parasram (respondent No. 3) is the son of Chamroo and Tulsiram (respondent No. 5) is the son of Karoo.3. By way of succession, the petitioner is owner of 7.60 hectare land (30 khasra numbers), situated at Village Bhalukona,...
Dr. Abhishek Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Chh58
Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. The petitioners by the instant petition have prayed for the following substantial reliefs:. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other writ, do issue quashing the condition i.e. Clause No. 6.2 of Pre. P.G. Entrance Examination, 2009, prescribing that the candidates appearing the Pre. P.G. Examination must be a bona fide resident of the Chhattisgarh be struck down, as violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India.. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to appear in the Pre. P.G. Entrance Examination, 2009 scheduled to be held on 11-4-2009 after accepting the form and other necessary documents available with the petitioners and if the petitioners qualify for the P.G. course, then be allowed to pursue their studies as per the rules prescribed in P.G. Medical Course.2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is tha...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateshwar Ispat P. Ltd.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR393(NULL)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1.1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and whether it was justified in confirming his views in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in share capital in spite of the respondent's failure to discharge the onus cast upon it as per the provisions of the law.1.2 Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the share capital ignoring the fact that no verification pertaining to its source was ever carried out in the year in which it was introduced.1.3 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›