Chhattisgarh Court June 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.
Kiran Agrawal (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Heera Bai (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT18
N.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-4-2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/1998 by 3rd Additional District Judge (FTC), Raigarh arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29-7-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1997 by Civil Judge Class I, Raigarh, whereby learned 1st Appellate Court affirmed the eviction decree passed against the appellants.3. The appellants are legal representatives of original defendant Kishan Agrawal and the respondents are legal representatives of original defendant Chintamani Sharaf. Both have died during pendency of first appeal and substituted in place of original plaintiff and defendant.4. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of C.G. Accommodation Control Act (briefly 'the Act'). As per the plaint averment, the plaintiff let out the suit house to the defendant vide a...
Deepak Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT24(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. The applicants have challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 8/2001, whereby learned Additional District Judge by affirming the order dated 14-8-2001 passed by Municipal Corporation, Raipur relating to imposition of property tax had dismissed the miscellaneous appeal.2. Legality & propriety of the order impugned is challenged on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Court below.4. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are that Lakhanlal - father of the applicants, husband of Saraswati Bai and father of Kishorilal was owner of the disputed property bearing House Nos. 737 & 737/1 situated within the territory of Municipal Corporation, Raipur. After the death of Lakhanlal, under family arrangement...
Ashwani Kumar Khande Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT60(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.Heard.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 31-12-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, order dated 27-1-2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, and the order dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Gram Panchayat, Vicharpur, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary.2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Vicharpur. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his alleged misconduct. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. The reply, on being found unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 5 vide its resolution dated 29-9-2001 resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary. Thereafter, vide order dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Se...
Maniram Dewar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4232
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Challenge is made to the judgment dated 27th of August, 2001 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 215/2001, whereby, appellant Maniram Dewar has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of 6 months R.I.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:Appellant Maniram Dewar and 4 other persons were charged under Sections 147, 148 & 302 read with 149 IPC. It was alleged that they being the members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of common object of that assembly, committed murder of deceased Shankar. It was witnessed by 2 eye witnesses namely Urmila Bai (PW-1) and Babloo (PW-2). Urmila Bai is the maternal aunt of the deceased, whereas, Babloo is the minor son of the deceased.The case of the prosecution was that on 22.3.2001 at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Shankar came in drunken condition and started abusing the appellant and ...
Somari Bai (Smt.) Vs. Sakuntala Thakur and ors. (Smt.)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J. 1. By this revision the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 4-2-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 27/2000 affirming the order dated 5-9-2000 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class II, Jagdalpur, in Civil MJC No. 3/99, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') was dismissed on the ground that the order dated 28-9-99 passed in Civil Suit No. 171- A/98 was under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code and no application for restoration of the suit is maintainable.2. Order is challenged on the ground that the learned Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it by dismissing the miscellaneous appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the order dated 28-9-99 was passed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code. .3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the present applicant has filed civil suit against the non-applicants whi...
Satyaranjan Mine Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-23-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT46(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agarwal, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the mater is heard finally. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 12-12-2007 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Director, Panchayat, in Revision Case No. 168/A-89/06-07, whereby, the Director, Panchayat has affirmed the order passed by the respondent No. 2, i.e., SIX), Ranker, against the petitioner's removal from the post of Acting Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Act, 1993').3. The brief facts of the case are that, on a complaint made by the respondent No. 3 and some other persons, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by appointing Enquiry Officer. On 10-8-2006, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda and exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, one more report was submitted by the same Enquiry Officer on the same date, and according to which the charges o...
income Tax Officer Vs. Dhan Sai Srivas and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR598; [2009]315ITR318; [2009]183TAXMAN302(NULL)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common substantial question of law is involved in these appeals whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the tribunal') was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer (for short 'A.O.') to allow the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- by applying the prospective amendment retrospectively?'2. For the purpose of this order, reference is made to the facts of Tax Case No. 17/2007 (Income Tax Officer, Korba v. Ram Sevak Gupta).3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was an employee of Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (Balco), Korba. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,22,315/-. Subsequently, he revised the taxable income at Rs. 98,800/-. The A.O. selected hi...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mahavir Prasad Verma and ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR305; [2009]317ITR36(NULL)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The appellants herein have preferred these appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') along with separate applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay, as these appeals have been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation of 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against was received by the appellants as provided under Section 260-A Sub-section 2 of the Act.2. Shri Rajeshwara Rao, learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 260-A are not complete Code in itself. By virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 260-A, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeal are applicable to appeal under Section 260-A. Under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the CPC, application for condonation of delay, for condoning the delay in appeal is maintainable and that procedure is applicable to appeal under Section 260-A and, therefor...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dashrath Pandey and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT52(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. By allowing I.A. No. 02/2009, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant is heard on I. A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.3. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant/Insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.4. I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.5. Shri B.N. Nande, learned Counsel for the appellant is heard on admission.6. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 10-9-2008, passed by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 75/2008.7. Respondent No. 1 Dashrath Pandey and respondent No. 2 Naveen Pandey, unfortunate husband and son of deceased S...
Tejram Rathore Vs. Sanjog Bareth and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT56(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Heard on admission.2. Appellant/claimant Tejram Rathore is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Janjgir Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22-4-2009, passed in Claim Case No. 17/2009.3. As against the compensation of Rs. 4,39,609/- claimed by appellant/claimant Tejram Rathore, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 6-5-2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 47,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.4. Shri R.N. Jha, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs. 47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident.5. For the reasons best known to...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›