Chhattisgarh Court December 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.
Sudamaram and Others Vs. Nasibchand Sharma and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
(Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act) Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanker (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.06.2010, passed in Claim Case No.61/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and children of deceased Urmila Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 19.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- 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 Urmila Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 19.04.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offe...
Rambha Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation for maintenance of her children, who were born on failure of family planning sterilization operation undergone by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 11.09.1995, the petitioner had undergone family planning sterilization operation, as is evident from Annexure-A at Primary Health Center, Gujara. Thereafter, on 19.02.1999 (Annexure B), she gave birth to a male child and again on 18.03.2002 (Annexure C), she gave birth to a female child. 3. According to the petitioner, before the family planning operation, she was already having five children (3 male and 2 female). Learned counsel further submits that since it was a case of negligent on the part of the concerned Doctors, the respondent State is under an obligation to grant compensation to the petitioner ...
Padmalaya Yadav and Others Vs. Ramswaroop Yadaw and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
(Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 13th December 2011) Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.182/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Kanhaiya Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,64,000/- 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 Kanhaiya Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash a...
Bhilai Engineering Corporation Limited Vs. the Commissioner Central Ex ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
(Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944) Per SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal filed under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act, 1944") arises from the final order No.03/05-B dated 24-12-2004 (Annexure A/4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `CESTAT'), in E/Appeal No.2006/2004-NB(B) with E/CO/215/ 2004-NB (B), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/Revenue was allowed. 3. By order dated 21-1-2010, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur and considering that the Coil Transfer Car is classifiable under the Heading 86.06 Railway or Tramway Goods Vans and Wagaons not self-propelled instead of under Heading No.84.55 part of Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls of Central Excise Tariff, 1994-95?" 4. The fac...
Chandrabhan Vs. Shyamdhan and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
(Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1992 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur, in Civil Appeal No.41A/1991, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit for partition and possession dated 2.11.85 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.56A/84. 2. The present second appeal was admitted on 5.9.92 on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the Gotiyai land could neither be alienated nor partitioned? (2) Whether the suit land remained impartiable even after the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act on its settlement in the name of a member of joint Hindu family? 3. As per plaint allegation, present appellant/plaintiff Chandrabhan has filed the suit for partition and possession of the suit property shown in Schedule A situated at village ...
Heeralal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
(Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-6-2008 passed by Session Judge, Durg in Session Trial No.43/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Heeralal Sahu has been convicted under Sections 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Padumlal Soni (PW-1), along with his son Sunil Soni (deceased), was running business of ornaments/jewelleries moving market to market. On 17-10-2005, at about 7:00 A.M., the deceased went to Village Ruda for selling ornaments. Padumlal Soni (PW-1) did not accompany him on account of bad weather. At about 3 P.M., when the deceased did not come back, ...
Sanjudevi Mahato and Others Vs. Shri Bunti and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
(Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 09th December 2011) Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.14/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,98,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Sanjay Kumar Mahato, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 26.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,09,480/- 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 Sanjay Kumar Mahato died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.06.2007; the accident occurred d...
Expert Aryan Security Services Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and An ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to clear all the recoveries/unauthorized deductions made from monthly bills of the petitioner, and also release payment pertaining to all extra duty bills pending with the respondents No.1 and 2. The total amount due to petitioner is more than Rs. 19,39,089/- (Nineteen lakh, thirty nine thousand and eighty nine only) and the same may be released within prescribed time with interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No.1 to provide security services to S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Area, District Korba, on 24.11.2003. Thereafter, it was again renewed. The respondents began deducting monthly wage bills and also extra duty wage bills. Thus, this petition for recovery of the amount, as according to the petitioner amount is all admitted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents dispute the am...
Avinash Chandra Sondhi and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anoth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to refer his applications (Annexure P/2 and P/3) filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, `the Act') for its determination. 2. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are brother and sisters and are the owners of land in question, bearing Khasra No. 678/1, 678/2, 678/3, 679/3, 685/2, total admeasuring 5.80 acres and Khasra No. 680, 685/2, total admeasuring 7.24 acres, situated at village Janjgiri, District Durg. An acquisition proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities in the year 1995 for providing the same to the National Thermal Power and Grid. The award was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 18.06.1998 and the land of the petitioners were accordingly acquired and compensation was assessed to the tune of Rs. 4,76,428/- and 4,85,370/- respectively. Since the compe...
Bajrang Kedia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Now Cg
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
(Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1995 passed by the 6th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.63-A/93, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.9.88 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.105-A/88, whereby the suit filed on behalf of the appellant against the State for possession and mesne profit has been dismissed. 2. The present second appeal was admitted on 16.8.1995 on the following substantial question of law:- "When in a suit based on title, governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff proves his title to the suit land, could he be non-suited on the ground that he failed his possession in respect thereof within 12 years of the institution of the suit, in absence of plea and proof of adverse pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »