Chhattisgarh Court March 2010 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.
Shilpi Jaiswal (Smt.) Vs. Alok Jaiswal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT25(CG)
Rangnath Chandrakar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the legality and propriety of the ' judgment and decree dated 23-1-2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2007, whereby the learned Judge Family Court refusing the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') for dissolution of marriage, granted a decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act in favour of the respondent/husband. 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. Admittedly, the parties are legally wedded spouses and their marriage was solemnized at Korba, according to Hindu rites and customs on 3-7-2003 and after marriage they resided together for some time peacefully. The respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 against his wife for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of adulter...
Roshan Prasad Sidar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT8(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioners, in this batch of petitions, are aggrieved by the cancellation of their respective appointment orders, without affording an opportunity of hearing.2. The question of law involved in this batch of petitions, i.e., W.P. (S) Nos. 6713, 6714, 6746, 6793, 7170 and 7335 of 2009 is whether the appointments of the petitioners, who have been appointed after due selection, can be cancelled on the ground of submission of alleged false and forged documents by some of the candidates, without affording an opportunity of hearing? Thus, these petitions are being considered and decided by this common order.3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, in the petitions, are that the petitioners were selected for appointment on the posts of Multipurpose Health Worker, Dresser & Assistant Grade III through proper selection process and they were accordingly appointed. The petitioners joined their respective posts at respective places on 26-8-2003, 26-8-2003, 26-8-20...
B.C. Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-16-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT22(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12-3-2003 (Annexure P-l), whereby recovery of special pay to the tune of Rs. 250/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996 has been directed to be recovered from the pay of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner ad the amount is paid to him in accordance with the order passed by the respondent/authority. No reason has been assigned as to on which count the special pay granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn and recovery of the same is directed. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner without following ...
Nilesh Kumar Lukand Vs. Nirmal Bardiya
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT14(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. By this criminal revision applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29-9-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2007 affirming the judgment of conviction of applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act of 1881') and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of 3 months by maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari vide judgment dated 5-12-2007 in Criminal Case No. 264/06.2. Judgment is impugned on the ground that both the Courts below has not considered the question of law involved in the present case is that the applicant have been convicted and sentenced for the offence which he has not committed.3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision as per complaint of the respondent present applicant has issued cheque No. 053208 on 4-5-01 in discharge of liability of Rs. 75,000/- ...
Sukhwati @ Bhuri and ors. Vs. Prahalad and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT102(CG)
ORDERRajeev Gupta, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29-7-1988, passed in Claim Case No. 3/92.2. As against the compensation of Rs. 7,87,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Dayalu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14-12-1991, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Dayalu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14-12-1991; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. MP-9D/4969; a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›