Chhattisgarh Court November 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.
Dhirendra Kumar Banjare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure P-8) issued from the office of Transport Commissioner, Raipur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief are that his father namely Bhajanlal Banjare who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 died on 9.5.2003 and immediately after his death, the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment but it was not considered though several correspondences were made by the State authorities in this regard. All this compelled the petitioner to file W.P. (S) No. 5468/2009 before this Court and it is only after the order passed by this Court on 24.9.2009 vide Annexure P-6, the impugned order came to be issued. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been issued ignoring the correct factual position and though as per this ...
Gajju Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner after finding him unsuitable to hold the post in view of clause 8 of the regularization order dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure P-2). 2. Facts of the case in brief are that from 31.12.1985 the petitioner was working as daily rated labourer and pursuant to the circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the State Government (Annexure P-1) his services were regularized vide order dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure P-2). As per clause 8 of the regularization order the petitioner was required to undergo character verification by the police. The said clause also mentions that if any adverse remark is found by the police in the character verification, services of the incumbent would be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing or conducting departmental enquiry against him. 3. Accordin...
Managing Director, Magma Fincorp Limited and Another Vs. Mohan Prasad ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
V.K. Patil, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as District Forum) in Complaint Case No.217/2007, whereby the complaint of complainant was allowed and the OPs were directed to return the vehicle No.C.G.-15 A/3646 to the complainant in running condition failing which to pay the value of the vehicle Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from 08.05.2007 till final payment, also Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-. OPs, having been aggrieved by the impugned order, have filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as averred in the complaint are that the complainant had made a sale agreement on 29.10.2005 with OPs in respect of two repossessed Swaraj Mazda vehicles having registration Nos.C.G.15-A-3646 and C.G.07-C-2210. Complainant averred that he had deposited with OPs Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque and Rs...
Commissioner Customs and Central Excise Raipur Vs. Grasim Cement
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
Oral Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This reference has been filed under Section 35-H (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act, 1944") seeking a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") to refer, inter alia, the following questions of law (i) "whether the pollution control equipments are essential ingredients being machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product i.e. cement, to fall within the definition of `capital goods' in terms of explanation to 57-Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules, 1944");" and (ii) "whether the material handling machinery/equipments are used for producing or processing of any goods or for the process of final product or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final prod...
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur Vs. Roopchand Tharani
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.) Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench, Bilaspur (for short `the Tribunal') in I.T.A No. 22/BLPR/2009. 2. The appeal of the Revenue was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein it was held that the AO rejected the books of Accounts of the assessee maintained and audited by the Chartered Accountant without pointing out any mistake in the books?" 3. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer (for short `the AO'), while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act, 1961'), issued notice to the assessee under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, 1961. The assessee appeared through Advocates and Chartered Accountant and produced the books of account. The AO, holding th...
Sri Prabhakar Bagde and Others Vs. District Manager Food Corporation o ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Durg in ID Reference 34/95 rejecting the claim of the first party i.e. the petitioners herein for regularization. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 17.5.1995, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur made a reference to the Labour Court, Raipur in the following terms: "Whether the termination of the employees from services as mentioned in the list is legal and proper. If not, to what relief they are entitled and in this regard what direction is to be given to the management?" 3. The dispute was subsequently transferred to Labour Court, Durg; statement of claim was filed by the petitioners and they examined five witnesses in support of their case. Written statement was filed by the Food Corporation of India denying the claim of the petitioners though they have not examined any witness i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›