Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Motilal, and ors. Vs. Shivnarayan; State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 16/9/91 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No. 50-A/86 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24/9/82 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-2 Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 8-A/81. 2. Present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below erred in law in negative the equitable claim made by the plaintiffs-appellants that in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 22/1/1981 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 306/74 the agricultural lands as detailed in Schedule-B to the plaint be allotted to them pursuant to the decree for partition passed between the parties in the present suit?. 3. As per pleading of the parties present appellants have purchased the suit land from one Thakur, hus...
Dayashanker Singh. Vs. the State of M P.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 12-10-1990 passed by the 4th Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No.6/88, whereby & whereunder learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for demanding and accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by misusing the office, convicted the appellant under Sections 161 of the I.P.C. & 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to undergo R.I. for two years & pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months, respectively. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of demanding and accepting bribe, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was posted as Ranger in the Forest Department at Achanakmar Reserve Fore...
Dineshwar Prasad Chandrakar. Vs. the State Government of Chhattisgarh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The review petitioner (writ petitioner) seeks review of the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3714/2008 on the ground that the other relief sought for by the petitioner could not be pointed out by the counsel of the review petitioner, therefore, the same could not be adjudicated. Thus, the present review petition. It is admitted case that the order sought to be reviewed was passed on the points raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had given up other points and contested the only point of direction to deduct a sum of Rs. 4590/- as excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. The order sought to be reviewed was passed on 12.09.2008. The petitioner has thereafter noticed the alleged error after 572 days. The petitioner ought to have approached this Court within a prescribed limitation period 30 days. The petitioner filed review petition on 7.5.2010 with a delay of 572, alongwith I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay. ...
Shashi Bhushan Prasad GuptA. Vs. Arti Devi.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-28-2010
1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has filed this first appeal against the order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil M.J.C. No.9/2006 whereby applications of the respondent herein filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC & Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been allowed and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.06.2004 has been set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for divorce was filed by the appellant on 5.5.2003 which was registered as Civil Suit No.237-A/04. On filing of the civil suit, the court below issued summons to the defendant/respondent herein and the same could not be served on the defendant, therefore, service has been effected through publication wherein name of the respondent was mentioned as `Aarti Kumari" instead of "Aarti Devi", but on this publication also the defendant did not turn up and therefore, on 5.8.2003 the court below passed order to proceed ex-parte against her. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under O...
ishwar Aadhar Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of discharge dated 15.1.93 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.139/91, whereby learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent of the charge of the then applicable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (i) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the ground that after repealing of the Prevention of Prevention Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1947'), sanctioning authority has accorded sanction under the provisions of the Act, 1947 on 5.2.1991 for which he was not competent to accord sanction and any such sanction is not sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence and was no legal sanction. 2. Order is impugned on the ground that sanctioning authority was competent to accord sanction and only on the ground of misquoting of the provisions, especially in the light of Section 30 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred...
Sanat Kumar Sonkar, and anr. Vs. Moti Lal Sonkar, and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7/1/2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 286/2003 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his son Chaitram convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of the appellant, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality.3. As per case of the prosecution, on faithful night of 14/6/2003 at about 12.30 (0.30) appellant along with his son Chaitram and another child were present in his house at village Kusumi. Present appellant assaulted his son C...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›