Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs. Bhagwat Prasad Vishwakarma
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this revision under Section 23(E) of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act (briefly 'the Act'), the tenant/applicant challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 22-2-2008 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur on the application filed by the non- applicant/landlord.2. Indisputably the applicant is tenant in a non-residential accommodation/shop situated at Tikrapara, Bilaspur. The respondent is his landlord. The landlord served upon the tenant notice dated 20-8-99 through his Counsel terminating his tenancy. The landlord in his application averred that he requires the suit shop bonafide for his own business and for the business of his wife, children and members of the family for earning their livelihood and for that, he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available in the city of Bilaspur. Since the tenant despite notice did not vacate the suit premises, hence application under Section 23-A of the Act for eviction of tena...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.R. Bansal and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(NULL)247
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. In IT Ref. No. 17 of 2002 the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (in short 'the Tribunal') has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of CIT, Jabalpur and referred the following question of law arising out of order dt. 28th June, 1985 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 822/Nag/1984 for our opinion:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in not giving finding in its order with regard to applicability of presumption under Section 132(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 to the assessment proceedings?2. The other connected income-tax references and income-tax appeals are also being disposed of by this common order as appeals preferred by the Revenue in the connected cases, have been dismissed by the Tribunal in view of the order dt. 28th June, 1985 passed in ITA No. 822/Nag/1984, D.R. Bansal v. CIT, and the question of law involved in all the references and appeals is the same, wh...
Hindustan Lever Limited and anr. Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ552
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is for quashment of criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 511/2003 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that petitioner No. 2 K. Venkatramani is not the nominee appointed by petitioner No. 1 in the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 17(2) of the Act, therefore continuance of criminal proceeding against the person not connected with the commission of offence would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Quashment is also prayed on the ground that prosecution has been launched against petitioner No. 1 intentionally and deliberately after lapse of more than 1 1/2 years of the date of taking sample of the food product which was permitted for use within thr...
Sahdeo and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ178
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These appeals have been directed against the judgment and order dated 34-1-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160/2002 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir (C.G.), whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 1 month and R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:On 1-3-2002, at about 7.00 a.m., Sarju Prasad Rathore (PW-1) saw two dead bodies lying in Mundinala near Birgahni Chowk. He lodged Merg intimations (Ex. P/1 & P/2) in the concerned police station. The Investigating Officer reached to that place, gave notices (Ex. P/40 & P/41) to the Panchas and prepared inquest reports (Ex. P/42 & P/43) on the dead bodies of t...
Bhishambhar Dayal Patel @ Judev Patel Vs. Yuddhveer Singh Judev
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT16
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. This Election Petition is listed on default as pointed out by Additional Registrar (Judicial) vide office note dated 20th March, 2009 that the petition filed is barred by 1 day.2. From the pleadings in the petition, it appears that the result of the election of respondent was declared on 8th December, 2008 and petition has been filed on 23rd January, 2009, i.e., on 46th day after declaration of result.3. Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') prescribes as under:81. Presentation of petitions.-- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are dif...
Gharbharan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ471
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These appeals have been directed against the judgment and order dated 29/30-1-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 392/2001 by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:Appellant-GahabarConviction SentenceUnder Section 302, IPC Imprisonment for life Under Section 323 read Fine of Rs. 500/-, in de-with Section 34, fault of payment of fine toIPC further undergo R.I. for 4months AndAppellant-GharbharanConviction SentenceUnder Section 302 read with Imprisonment for lifeSection 34, IPCUnder Section 323, IPC Fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault of payment offine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:Seven accused persons, including the 2 appellants, were tried for the offences punishable Under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/ 149, IPC. The allegations were that on 28-9-2001 at about 6.00 p.m. they formed an unlawf...
Sanjay Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT81(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J. 1. This petition is for quashment of the criminal proceeding registered in Criminal Case No. 2199/2007, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against the present petitioners.2. Quashment of the criminal proceeding is prayed on the ground that the alleged cheque has not been issued by the present petitioners and has been issued by co-accused Kamlesh Kumar Patel, therefore, the present petitioners are not liable for any liability arose under the said cheque and continuation of criminal case would be abuse of the process of the Court.3. Counsel for the parties are heard.4. On 11-8-2009 Counsel for the petitioners has filed an application for deletion of the name of respondent No. 2 Krishnalal on account of his death and the name of respondent No. 2 Krishnalal has been deleted by Coun...
Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ545
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. These appeals have been directed against the judgment and order dated 3-2-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 422/2002 by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently:Conviction SentenceUnder Section 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergoR.I. for 1 year.Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo R. I. for 1 year.Under Section 377/34 IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, indefault of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 9 months.Under Section 201 IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault of payment of fine to further undergoR.I. for 6 months.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as un...
Shraddha Thakur (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT27(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to the notification dated 26th July, 2005 (Annexure P-1) under provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894'), and the notification dated 16th November, 2005 (Annexure P-2) under provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1894.2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Collector, Jagdalpur, in exercise of his power as Deputy Secretary to the Government, caused a notification under provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, published in the Official Gazette on 26th July, 2005 for proposed acquisition of 20.29 acres of land in Village Hatkachora, Patari Halka No. 60(A), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, wherein the petition scheduled land, owned by the petitioners is situated. Thereafter, a notification under provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 16th November, 2005. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 was issued.3. The petitioners challe...
Nityanand Panigrahi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT30(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agarwal, J.1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23-7-1992, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur (for short 'SDO'), in Case No. 475/A-23/91-92, order dated 31-5-1993, passed by Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No. 7/A-23/92-93, and order dated 23-6-1997, passed by the Commissioner, Bastar, in Revenue Case No. 85/A-23/92-93, whereby and whereunder, the SDO directed for restoration of possession of the disputed land in favour of predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The same was affirmed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case as per petitioner are that, the petitioner's father Sanujjay Panigrahi, under a registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1965 (Annexure P-2), purchased the agricultural land comprising Khasra No. 216 Admeasuring 1 Acre, situated in Village Titargaon, Tah. Jagdalpur, from one Butia son of Kartik Ram Bhatar...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »