Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Hansraj. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-12-2002 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 257 of 2002, whereby learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kanker, District Kanker, has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, for committing murder of Preetam, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected in the impugned judgment is that the accused appellant was helping Ramlal in his domestic works in village Ghotha Sakulpara. The accused/appellant was being tormented by Ramlal whenever he demanded money as his wages. On 28-3- 2002 the appellant in the pretext that he is going to his house, took the cycle and bag and proceeded ahead. At about 9.00 he returned back and told Ramlal that the cycle got punctured. He left the cycle and bag and demanded mone...
Dileep; Shambhooram. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 16.1.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, in Sessions Trial Nos. 200/89 & 202/89, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, rigorous imprisonment for four years and rigorous imprisonment for five years, respectively. 2. Conviction is challenged on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.5.1989 at early part of the night the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 14 years (name not mentioned) was playing in her village Chichgaon, Police Station Bhanupratappur where appellant Shambhoo met her and told to accompany him which sh...
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited. Vs. Glencore
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
ORAL ORDER Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. I.A.No.2, application for taking documents on record in support of the stay application, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission as also on I.A.No.1, application for interim relief. 3. While filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order dated 6-7-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.6A of 2010; and /or b) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings anywhere (except in India) including from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice, or any other court in England which would have the effect of preventing the petitioner from commencing and or...
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited. Vs. Glencore.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. I.A.No.2, application for taking documents on record in support of the stay application, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission as also on I.A.No.1, application for interim relief. 3. While filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order dated 6-7-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.6A of 2010; and /or b) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings anywhere (except in India) including from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice, or any other court in England which would have the effect of preventing the petitioner from commencing and or pursuing any proceedings in India to set aside the award dated 17-6-2010...
Yugal Prasad Dewangan. Vs. Smt.Kanakbati, and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1. By this Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality & propriety of the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bastar at Kanker, in Civil Appeal No.13-A/96, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit and decreeing the suit filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs for partition and separate possession dated 8.10.96 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Narayanpur, in Civil Suit No.4-A/91. 2. The present appeal is admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Courts below have fallen into error by passing a decree regarding the validity of the deed of settlement dated 22.6.1971 (Ex.D-1) in the absence of any prayer made in the plaint or any issue having been framed in this regard? ii) Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation? 3. As per pleadings of the parties i.e. respondents No.1 to 5, predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to 5 deceased Janak Prasad ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›