Chhattisgarh Court April 2010 Judgments

Tulsiram Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgsarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

Judgement1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider them for grant of appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 29/3/1995 (Annexure P/1) the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III for the academic sessions 1995. Thereafter, for the next session, their services were discontinued.3. Sole contention of the petitioners is that one of the similarly situated person namely Ridhram Sahu (petitioner No.4 in this petition also), had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in the year 1998 and by order dated 9/1/1998, it was directed to consider his case having regard to his past experience and performance. One more person namely Santosh Kumar Kashyap approached this Court in the year 2005. This Court by order dated 26/4/2005 having considered the facts of the case, directed Santosh Kumar Kas...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijay Kumar Goel

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: [2010]324ITR376(NULL)

Dhirendra Mishra, J.1. This income-tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for short 'the Tribunal') has been admitted on April 13, 2009 on the following substantial questions of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the banking instruments which do not find place specifically in Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being credible, cannot be denied with reference to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act?Whether the Tribunal has ignored the true nature of transaction which was initially between the supplier and the intermediaries and thereafter between the intermediaries and the assessee?2. The facts, as projected in the memo of appeal, are that the assessee in the relevant assessment year derived income from trading of steel and HDPE bags. The s...

Sitaram Vs. State of C.G. and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

Judegment 1. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a resident of Gram Panchayat Jamdi, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, has preferred this petition on the ground that a complaint was made by him on 06.12.2005 (Annexure P/1) with regard to non-payment of amount of Rs. 10,000/- under the Pradhanmantri Gramoday (Gramin Awas) Yojna, Year 2003-2004 and various other complaints with regard to certain financial irregularities committed by the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 was removed after enquiry by order dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P/5) but thereafter, he was reinstated in service by order dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure P/6).2. The question in this petition is asto whether the petitioner has any locus to prefer this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 6 and further, a direction to enquire into the various complaints.3. It is well settled that a writ is maintainable only at the instance of the aggrieved perso...

Manoj Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT98(CG)

ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. By this criminal revision, petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 16-3-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2010, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-2-2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri in Criminal Case No. 682/08 whereby and where under after holding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 200/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 2 days and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for 5 days.2. Judgment is impugned on the ground that without any clinching and credible evidence Court below has convicted and sentenced the petitioner and affirmed the conviction and sentence thereby committed an illegality.3. Brief case necessary for dispo...

Arun Kumar Sugandh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2010(3)MPHT19(CG)

ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the ' petition is heard finally.2. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus and direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics).3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 9-12-2005 (Annexure P. 1) issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the name of the petitioner did not figure in the main select list, subsequently by letter dated 22-7-2008 the petitioner was informed that his name is in the supplementary list as No. 1. After the said information, no appointment order has been issued till date. Thus, this petition.4. It is not the...