Chhattisgarh Court February 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Anil Kumar Ahirey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT105(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 14-11-2002 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur and the order dated 10-12-2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagopahari, pursuant to the order dated 14-11-2002.2. The facts, in nutshell, for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 24-11-1995. All of a sudden by order dated 14-11-2002 (Annexure P-l), on the basis of some complaints made by the villagers, the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, directed the Gram Panchayat, Nagopahari to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. On the basis of the said order, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagopahari, passed the impugned removal order dated 10-12-2002 (Annexure P-2). Thus, this petition.3. Shri Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule ...
S.B. Tripathi and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT59
ORDERSunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13-8-2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4421/2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants/ petitioners have filed this writ appeal.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were working on the post of Principals, Government Higher Secondary Schools. They have already retired from services. Appellant No. 4 is still working on the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. The appellants were promoted to the post of Principals in the pay scale of Rs. 2375-75-3200-100-3500-125-4125/- vide order dated 30-7-1990. As per the promotion orders, they joined on the promotional posts. Later on, the State Government vide order dated 19-3-1991 substituted the above pay-scales of the Principals by Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500/-in place of earlier pay scale of Rs. 2375-4125/-. According to the said order, the higher pay scale in the earlier order was quoted on account of clerical m...
State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Shivprasad
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General, (or the State/petitioner is heard on I.A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.').2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C..3. I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned.4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/accused Shivprasad.5. Police Charcha, District Korea charge-sheeted respondent/accused Shivprasad and his co-accused Bagarsai for the alleged commission of offen...
Suresh Darvade Vs. Arjun Ram Pandey
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
Reported in: AIR2010Chh40
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The respondent/plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of title and possession of plaint Schedule-A property on the plea that one Jhadu Ram was his father and the original defendant No. 1 Gendi Bai is his mother. Jhadu Ram was granted lease (patta) of the suit land and after his death, it was recorded in the name of Gendi Bai (step-mother of the plaintiff). According to the plaintiff, after the death of Gendi Bai, he would succeed to the property, however, the original defendant No. 2/appellant has encroached over the property and is in illegal possession, therefore, his title may be declared and possession may be delivered to him.3. The defendant came up with a plea that the plaintiff is not the son of Gendi Bai but he is son of Budhyarin Bai and that the suit property was a self acquired property of Gendi Bai, being her stridhan and it was never recorded in the name of Jhadu Ram. The defendant claims that he has purchased the prope...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jisco Enterprises
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Reported in: (2010)30VST218(NULL)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. This order shall dispose of the S.T.R. No. 150 of 1998 and S.T.R. No. 151 of 1998, as both the references arise from the common order dated July 6, 1998.2. By the common order dated July 6, 1998, passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, the following questions of law have been referred for consideration of this Court:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the drawing of ribbed bar from iron scrap amounted to manufacture when the dealer got the process done by others?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying upon a decision of the Tribunal dated November 22, 1991 in Appeal No. 111-111/89 which is actually the opinion of only one Member of the Division Bench?3. The relevant facts, in a nutshell, are that for the period of assessment, i.e., October 25, 1984 to October 12, 1985 and November 3, 1986 to October 22, 1987 the non-applicant/assessee claimed exemption of purchase tax on purchase of M.S. scrap as it was conve...
M.P. Hospital Supply Company Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT32(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agarwal, J.1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree passed by 5th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 12-B/90 whereby and whereunder decree has been passed against the respondent directing respondent to pay Rs. 36,060.50 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.2. Shri Dhote, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Court below has erred in awarding interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount at the rate of 6% only. He would further contend that transaction being commercial transaction, learned Court below ought to have awarded interest at the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions, as provided under proviso to Section 34 of the CPC. Reliance has been placed by Shri Dhote upon the jud...
Hemlata Sonwani (Smt.) Vs. Dr. K.R. Sonwani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT49(CG)
T.P. Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 28-4-2008 passed by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 166-A/2007, whereby learned Judge Family Court has allowed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed on behalf of the respondent. The decree is impugned on the ground that without any proof of cruelty the Court below has passed the decree and thereby committed illegality.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that as per pleadings of the parties, the parties are legally wedded spouses and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rights and customs on 1 -5-1985. As per pleadings of the respondent, the respondent is a senior Doctor in District Hospital Raipur and after marriage they resided together at Simga till 1994. Just after 2-3 months of the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant became abnormal. She is a woman of arbitrary nature. She was reckless for her family...
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poornima Soni (Smt.) an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT109(CG)
ORDERN.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 5-1-2009 passed in Claim Case No. 62/2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker Distt. Uttar Bastar, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 5,81,200/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant for the death of deceased Ravi Kumar in the accident dated 17-1-2008.3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly and frankly conceded that the appellant/Insurance Company in this appeal is challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal without obtaining any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly 'the Act') to contest the claim of all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. However, he would submit that even without obtaining such permission, the Insurance Company can file appeal challenging quantum of compensation.4. The question falls for consideration before ...
Dilip Kumar Rai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT75(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.Heard.1. By this petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 4-6-2008, passed by the respondent No. 3 in Revenue Case No. 08-A-89/2007-08 (Nand Kishore v. Dilip Kumar and Ors.), whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 7, challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary, Village Panchayat - Ghutra, was allowed, holding the resolution dated 7-2-2008 was not in accordance with law.2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that by order dated 7/8-1-2008 (Annexure P-l) the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat -Manendragarh directed the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Nai Ledri/Ghutra to start proceedings for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. Accordingly the advertisement was issued on 11-1-2008 (Annexure P-2), inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Pursuant to the advertisemen...
Fanindra Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of C.G. and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-08-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT79(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11-12-2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by the respondent No. 2, i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I, vide order dated 27-7-1998 at Government Higher Secondary School, Magarload. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 11-12-2009 (Annexure P-l) the petitioner was placed under suspension.3. The petitioner impugns the order dated 11-12-2009 (Annexure P-l) on the sole ground that the wrong provisions have been invoked for suspending the petitioner. Shri Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 are not applicable to service conditions of Shiksha Karmis as there is a sep...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »