Chhattisgarh Court February 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.
Ghanshyam Vs. Sanghmitra Datta and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. Instant first appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-2000 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.15-A/97 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs suit was decreed. Brief facts of the case are as under : 2. House shown in sale deed dated 30-1-1986 (Ex.D-2) was owned by Dr. S. N. Datta. After his death on 28-3-1989, it devolved on his widow Smt. Asha Datta, Daughter Ku. Sanghmitra Datta and son Pinakpani Datta. Smt. Asha Datta expired on 7-1-1992. After her death, plaintiff and defendant No.1 became owner of the above house. 3. Vide public notice by publication in Nav Bharat newspaper dated 6-8-1992, the plaintiff claimed her absolute ownership in the suit house. Settlement deed dated 2-12-1996 was executed between the parties wherein it has been shown that total land area 2400 sq. ft. has been partitioned between them for its separate management. Defendant No.1 sold 1200 sq. ft. of land to defendant No....
Sanesh Kumar Ratnakar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(Writ Petitions under Article 226227 of the Constitution of India)1. W.P.Nos.265, 266 and 267 of 2006, involved common facts and a common question of law and, as such, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.2. Challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 24-12-2005 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, District Janjgir-Champa canceling the appointment made earlier by order dated 7-11-2005 (Annexure - P/7) for two years on probation.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appointment was made in accordance with the selection process and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed on probation for a period of two years. The Additional Collector, without having any authority, cancelled the appointment stating that there were irregularities in the selection, as several relatives of the candidates were in the selection committee as members. Learned counsel further submits that once the petitioners have ...
Smt B Renu and Others Vs. Shivanandan Died and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
(MISC APPEAL US 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988)I.M. QUDDUSI, J,1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 12.09.2001 passed by the IV Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G), in Claim Case No. 12/2001 which was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of the deceased due to accident of Luna with some unknown vehicle where he was a pillion rider.2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimants are that at about 6.30 p.m. on 24.10.2000, deceased B. Janak Rao was returning to his home at Khursipar from his place of duty at Sector 9 on a Moped Vehicle i.e. Luna bearing Regn. No. M.P. 7114. On the way at G.E. Road in front of I.T.I., an unknown Truck dashed the Luna from the near side on which the deceased who was sitting as pillion rider sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The claimants being dependents/legal representatives of the deceased have filed claim petition under...
Kishore Kumar Sarwa Vs. Bhineshwari Sahu and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
Oral Order (Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 30-10-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod in Criminal Revision No.4/2010 affirming the order framing charge dated 17-12-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara in Criminal Case No.541/2009, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has passed the order framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC, against the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2, on admission. 3. Respondent No.1 is not noticed. In the light of order impugned and order of the trial Court, I do not find necessary for issuance of notice to respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence pun...
Ajay Prakash Banjare and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
(CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 OF THE CrPC)T.P. SHARMA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2004 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.252/2002, whereby and whereunder learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Mohan Banjare in sharing common intention convicted them under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 10.5.2002 at about 10 p.m. all the appellants were searching Mohan Banjare (since deceased), they were holding ...
Gagan Rathi Vs. Ramdas Agrawal and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
ORAL- ORDER:(CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397,401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)1. By this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 12/1/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Raigarh in criminal revision No. 198/10 reversing the order dated 24/9/10 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in unregistered complaint case whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code but by reversing the order Sessions Judge, Raigarh has directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh to consider the material produced before it and passed the order afresh.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per Proviso to Section 398 of the Code Court was under obligation to provide an opportunity of hearing to the opposite parity i.e. accused before passing such order.3. Learned Sessions Judge has passed the order under Sect...
Mana Singh and Another Vs. Vijay @ Lovekush Kumar and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORDER (ORAL)(MISC APPEALS US 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988)I.M. QUDDUSI, J,1. Since, both the appeals are barred by limitation, applications (I.A.No.1) for condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been filed.Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and for the reasons stated in applications, we are of the opinion that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.2. Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.3. The claimant injured has filed M.A(C) No.803/2010 for enhancement of the amount of compensation granted vide impugned award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Bastar in Claim Case No.85/2008 whereas the insurer has preferred M.A(C). No.928/2010 challenging the involvement of the vehicle in question as well as the quantum fixed by the Tribunal.4. Brief f...
Smt RamhIn Bai and Others Vs. Subhash Verma and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
(MISC APPEAL US 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988)I.M. QUDDUSI, J,1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 31.12.2004 passed by the IX Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G), in Claim Case No. 6/2004 dismissing the claim of the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimants are that deceased Baldau Prasad Yadav was a Tractor Driver and was working with non- applicant no.1 on a monthly wages of Rs.2000/-. In the intervening night of 2/3-7.2003 when he was ploughing the field of non-applicant no.1 at his instructions near Ratanpur Khuntaghat by Tractor, the Tractor has turned turtle and he died. Earlier, the Tractor has mechanical defect and several times, it was brought to the notice of the owner i.e., non-applicant no.1, but he did not get it repaired. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased have made a claim to the tune of R...
Chandra Kumar Bhoi and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORDER ORAL:(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, by which the representation submitted by the petitioners has been rejected. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the petitioners were appointed on the post of Guruji for the period of one academic session. Thereafter, their services were discontinued on account of completion of the one academic sessions.4. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners preferred a petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No.5409 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 26-9-2008 with liberty to the petitioners to make representation for re...
Pradhan Budha Mahakur and Others Vs. Gopal Singh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
(MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988)RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.10.2002, passed in Claim Case No.66/2002.2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, widow and minor children of deceased Dolamani Mahakur, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.10.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 Dolamani Mahakur died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.10.2000; the accident occurred due to rash an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »