Chhattisgarh Court September 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.
Raman Mehar, and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. The petitioners are presently working as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Polytechnic College since 1999-2000. They have experience of working as regular lecturer of 21 years and they have work experience as lecturer (Selection Grade) of 8 years. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition for declaring the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Gazetted) Service (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short `the Rules, 2005') to the extent of providing eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Principal ultra vires Sections 10 & 23 of All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short `the Act, 1987') and notification dated 30th December, 1999. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that All India Council for Technical Education (for short `AICTE') is vested with statutory authority for planning, formulation and the maintenance of norms and standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of certificates a...
M/S Bharat Aluminium Company. Vs. Engineering Projects India, and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. W.P. No.1398 of 2002 (for short "the first petition") & W.P. (C) No.1781 of 2007 (for short "the second petition"), involve the same question of law and common facts and as such they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. However, for the purpose of this order the facts, as mentioned in the first petition are being referred. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner - Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (for short "BALCO"), are that vide invitation to tenders dated 6-11- 1997 & 7-11-1997 (Annexures - P/1 & P/2, respectively to the first petition), BALCO invited tenders from the interested parties for civil and structural works for installation of New Cold Rolling Mills Project at Korba Aluminium Complex. Pursuant to the said tender notices, the respondent - Engineering Projects (India) Limited (for short "EPIL") submitted its offer to the aforesaid works on 23-12-1997 & 24-12-1997 (Annexures - P/3 & P/4, respectively to the first petition)....
Vijay Ratan Lal Rathi, and anr. Vs.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. The appellants challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7-8-2001 (Annexure-P/9) and the order dated 20th March, 2003 (Annexure-P/1) by which the State Government in purported exercise of power under sub-section (5) of Section 80 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short `the Act') has refused to accord sanction in respect of the lease deed executed in favour of the appellants. 2. The order was challenged on the grounds that the same was passed against a person who died during the pendency of the recommendation before the State Government and also on the ground that the impugned order was passed in a review filed by son of Ratan Lal Rathi. The above contentions have been rejected with observations that resolution for grant of lease in favour of Ratan Lal Rathi was passed on 3rd April, 1987 when he was alive, however, the petitioners/appellants did not take steps to substitute the name of Ratan Lal Rathi before the State Government when the matter w...
Prathmik Matsya Sahakarisamiti Maryadit, and Others. Vs. State of Chha ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3, Additional Collector, Gariyaband whereby the Revenue Revision Case No./03/B-121, year 2007-2008, has been dismissed upholding the resolution dated 10.09.2007, passed by the respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Arand. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat Arand, issued a notification/publication on 08.09.207 for allotment of Government pond namely `Ganjha' on lease for fishing as per policy of the government. In response, four applications including that of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, were received. A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, allotting the lease of the pond for fishing to the respondent No.7... According to the petitioner, the said proposal was not in accordance with law, and accordingly, against the said resolution, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 3, praying for rejecti...
Smt Nanbutia; Laxmi.Vs. Smt Manglinbai; Shyamlal; Jagdish.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. By this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality & propriety of the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1993 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No.22A/92, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1992 and decreeing the suit passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No.60A/87. 2. The present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the suit is barred by Section 257 clause (l) of the M.P. land Revenue Code, 1959 ?" 3. As per pleadings of the parties, on 18.2.72 original plaintiff Hariram predecessor-in-title of the respondents purchased agricultural land bearing khasra No.171 area 1.955 hectares and khasra No.31/2 area 0.50 hectare and came into possession from Chitki predecessor-in-title of the appellants. Chitki filed an application under Section 170-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short `the Code') for declaration of the alle...
ZameelA. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-10-2010
1. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing enquiry into the incident of death of his son namely Jameel (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died in Central Jail, Bilaspur, on 26.05.2007. Further, to register a case for serious offences against the guilty persons. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs may also be awarded. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased Jameel. On 20.05.2007, four police officers came in civil dress and arrested one Jagmohan on account of alleged theft of a motor-bike. Deceased visited the police station and he was also taken into custody on 21.05.2007. The petitioner came to know about the arrest of deceased on 22.05.2007. The deceased Jameel was taken into custody and put in Central Jail, Bilaspur. The petitioner met the deceased on 22.05.2007 at about 10.30 A.M. wherein she found that the deceased was having visible bruises a...
Mahamaya Service Centre. Vs.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 09/03/2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01/09/2008 (Annexure P/15) was dismissed. The Retail Outlet (Gramin Sewa Kendra) Dealership at Birra, Distict- Janjgir-Champa allotted in favour of the petitioner was terminated, by order dated 1/9/2008. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents for uninterrupted supply of HSD to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. The facts, in short, for disposal of the case, are that on 11/12/2006 an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short "IOCL") whereby the petitioner was appointed as Dealer of Retail Outlet (Gramin Sewa Kendra) Dealership at Birra, Distict-Janjgir-Champa (for short "RO") for sale of petrol [MS/High Speed Diesel (HSD)] of t...
Vijay Ratan Lal Rathi, and Another. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 07/08/2001 (Annexure P/9) and the order dated 20/03/2003 (Annexure P/1), by which the State Government in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (5) of Section 80 of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") has refused to accord sanction in respect of the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief, for disposal of the case, are that the land in dispute was initially allotted to Babu Hari Singh Darbar, who constructed the cinema hall. According to the petitioner, Babu Hari Singh Darbar leased out the cinema hall to the father of the petitioner on 24/3/1956. Babu Hari Singh Darbar died on 21/4/1972 and on his death, his son; Prithviraj Singh Darbar was brought on record, as his legal representative. Prithviraj Singh Darbar further executed a lease deed in favour of the father of t...
Devgun Yadav; Gurudayal, and Another. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ot ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. W.P. Nos. 1802 & 3288 of 2003 involve the same question of law & facts and, as such, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners, who are Sarpanch, Upsarpanch and Panchayat Karmi, respectively of Gram Panchayat- Kachanda, seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 22/04/2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa in Appeal No.2 A-89 (15) 2002-2003 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Devgun Yadav & Others) whereby and whereunder the Additional Collector directed to recover the amount from the petitioners on the ground that they had committed certain illegalities and irregularities in various construction activities. 3. The facts, in brief, for disposal of these petitions, are that on account of certain complaints against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation of public exchequer, the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat - Kachanda resolved to recover the amount from the petitioners. On the ba...
Lalmen GuptA. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16-08-2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur) in Criminal Revision No.92/2010 whereby order dated 15-07-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur in Crime No.123/2010 has been upheld. 2. Brief and necessary facts of the case for decision of the present case are that the applicants were arrested for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC by Police Station Darima under Crime No.123/2010 and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur on 16-05-2010. Upon expiry of 60 days from the date of such arrest, an application under Section 167(2) (a) (ii) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants before the learned Magistrate for their release on the ground that the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years, challan ought to be filed within a period of 60 days an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »