Chhattisgarh Court October 2011 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Bilaspur Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bansal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
(INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961)SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J1. The Assessing Officer (for short `the AO') Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, passed the assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') on 03.12.2007 for the assessment year 2005-2006 on the basis of proceedings initiated after survey under section 133-A of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,44,89,040/-2. Thereagainst, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) {for short `the CIT(A)}. The assessee filed an application under Rule 46-A seeking admission of additional evidence mainly in the form of confirmation letters from various persons. Copies of the same were forwarded to the AO under the office letter in ITA No. 165/CIT(A)/BSP/07-08/385 dated 14.03.2008, calling for his report and comments on the same. A reminder under this office letter of even no. dated 23.05.2008 was issued....
Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
(Petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR dated 29.5.2005 registered under Crime No. 194/05 and all connected criminal proceedings by police of Police Station-Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, alleging commission of offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to instant petition are that petitioner No.1- Manoj Kumar Sharma was married to Nandani, daughter of R.P. Sharma on 27.4.1999. While the deceased Nandni Sharma was residing with her husband-petitioner No.1, she died in suspicious circumstance on 20th September, 1999. An information in writing (Annexure P-1) regarding death of Nandani was sent to the Station House Officer of Police Station - Mullana, Ambala Cantt. on that very date i.e. 20th September, 1999 by one P.S. Ghosh, Flying Officer, Security ...
Rajneesh JaIn and Others Vs. Omprakash Sahu and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
(Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act) Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.71/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate husband and minor daughters of deceased Smt Shalini Jain by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accident on 21.01.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 Smt Shalini Jain died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21.01.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negl...
Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Icici Bank
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing the entire proceeding recommenced by the respondent by sending another notice 07.01.2011 (Annexure P/3) under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act').2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner had availed various loans and credit facilities from the respondent bank. Since there were certain defaults in payment of loan installments as per the terms agreed, the respondent bank issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 21.03.2009, which was replied on 05.05.2009 but the same was denied to be accepted by the respondent bank. The respondent Bank, thereafter, proceeded under section 14 of the Act, 2002 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5040/2009. the said petition was allowed directing the ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Vimlesh Kumar and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
(Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act) Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1) This common order shall govern the disposal of M.A.C.Nos.1532/2009 (Sarvind Vs. Vimlesh Kumar and others); 1533/2009 (Kailash Vs. Vimlesh Kumar and others); and 1534/2009 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Vimlesh Kumar and others), which arise out of the same accident dated 08.02.2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,95,000/-; Rs.7,95,000/-; and Rs.15,55,000/- claimed by appellants/ claimants Sarvind, Kailash and Sunil Kumar, by filing claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 08.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.45,000/-; Rs.20,000/-; and Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 8% 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 claimants Sarvind, Kailash and Sunil Kumar sustained multip...
Union of India and Others Vs. C.H. Venkat Rao and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31st July, 2008 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur, in Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, in O.A. No. 679/2007.2. Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the impugned order is contrary to the relief sought by the respondent in the original application, being O.A. No. 679/2007. The petitioners- authorities passed an order on 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 whereby, the punishment order of removal of the respondent No. 1 from service was modified to that of the compulsory retirement. It was clearly ordered that the intervening period from 09.11.1993 to the date of compulsory retirement shall be treated as "no work, no pay" and shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. The said order was never questioned and the same has attained finality. The respondent-employee has filed the above stated ori...
Ramakant Soni Vs. Ramratan Soni and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. This is defendant's First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the C.P.C.') directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in Civil Suit No.58-A/2004. 2. Plaintiff / respondent No.1 - Ramratan Soni, appellant / defendant No.1 - Ramakant Soni and respondent/defendant No.2 - Smt. Vijaylakshmi Soni are brothers and sister. Ramaratan Soni i.e. plaintiff instituted a suit for partition of joint family property i.e. house and moveable property described in Schedule of the plaint claiming 1/2 share in it. According to the plaintiff, suit property is coparcenery property belonging to plaintiff and defendant No.1 (appellant herein). His sister Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Soni, after marriage, is residing in her matrimonial home. Appellant, by filing written statement, denied partition inter alia on the ground: plaintiff relinquished h...
Dharamchand Kunjam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No 5978 of 2011 Dharamchand Kunjam ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others ...Respondents ! Shri Devesh Verma Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri V V S Moorthy Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No 1 2 and 4 CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated : 10/10/2011 : Judgement ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 10th day of October, 2011) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner, working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, District North Bastar, Kanker, has been removed from his post under the provisions of section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, `the Adhiniyam, 1993'). 2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner was the electedSarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, Uttar Bast...
Dharamchand Kunjam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner, working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, District North Bastar, Kanker, has been removed from his post under the provisions of section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, ‘the Adhiniyam, 1993').2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kumhankhar, Uttar Bastar Kanker. An application was made by the Panchas under the provisions of section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, for initiation of no- confidence motion against the petitioner, pursuant to which, the Tahsildar was appointed as Presiding Officer. Thereafter, resolution was passed on 11.07.2011 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.. Pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›