Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Jasmeet Singh Bagga
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)ORAL ORDER:1. The instant petition calls in question the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in case No. 28/10, whereby the respondent's petition under Section 24 of CPC was allowed and the Civil Suit No. 36- A/10 which was pending before IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, was transferred to the court of IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh.2. Brief facts of the case are that: the respondent herein, by filing an application under Section 24 of CPC, prayed for transfer of the case from the court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh to any other court on the ground that his Advocate is not appearing in the said court as he has some reservation in appearing before the said court.3. The question therefore arises for determination of this court is whether on such grounds the case can be transferred from one court to other.4. Section 24 of CPC gives general power of transfer to this court as well as ...
Manohar Lal Vs. Ramnihore
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
(First appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure 1908)1. By filing first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract of sale, dated 24-8-99 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.17-A/96.2. As per case of the plaintiff/appellant, respondent No.1 - owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.93/10, 93/5, 93/15 and 93/16 total area 3.14 acres situate at Village Pandhi, Patwari Halka No.27, entered into agreement of sale with the appellant herein on 2-5-96 for a consideration of Rs.1,26,000/- and after receiving Rs.5,000/- as advance he executed agreement Ex.P-1 before two witnesses and possession was also handed over by respondent No.1 to the appellant/plaintiff. However, on 15-5-96 respondent No.2 succeeded in getting execution of sale deed in his favour by respondent No.1. Respondents...
Vishal Chandrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh and Oth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India)1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the holders of the agricultural land, is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 28-4-1989 (Annexure P- 8) as also for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 2-2-1972 executed by the holder in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 be declared as valid. It has also been prayed that the entire holding be declared as unirrigated and the respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land in question.2. The proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (Now Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960; henceforth ‘the Act, 1960') was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg, however, in view of the fact that the lands belonging to the original holder Smt. Basanbai is situated in more than two districts of Raipur Division, th...
Vijay Kumar Darveka Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
ORDER ORAL:(Writ Petition under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:"7.1 That the respondents be directed to count the services of the petitioner (i.e. 19 years 6 months) for the pensionary benefits in his present assignment with the department of Treasury and Accounts.7.2 The petitioner be given all the monetary benefits treating it as if the petitioner is continuing his earlier service with one tim department only.7.3 That the G.P.F. amount of the petitioner (about Rs.1,50,000/-) be immediately transferred in his account. Likewise the gratuity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be also transferred, the amount of Group Insurance Scheme, leave encashment and the pension contribution (about Rs.2,00,000/-) be also immediately transferred in the account of the petitioner.7.4 The respondents be directed to pay 12% on the amount which is to be transferred in the name of the petitioner."3. Lear...
Rajeev Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant regular pay scale from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 04.04.1985.2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, for proper adjudication of the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Salesman in Government Country Liquor Shop, as daily wager employee vide order dated 04.04.1985 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector (Excise), Khargoun. However, in view of change of policy, the services of the petitioner as well as other employees were terminated w.e.f. 21.06.1990.3. Being aggrieved by the said action, the terminated employees preferred an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") being OA No.1006/1990 (M.P. Class III Government Employees Association and Others v. State of M.P. and Others). The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal in fa...
Lalan Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Now State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 2 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973)Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.6.94 passed in Sessions Trial No. 128/90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.(2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-The case of the prosecution is that Tija Bai (PW- 1) developed illicit relations with Lakhan Koshta and carried pregnancy of 7-8 months. Thereafter she was married to a person of village Chhachhi. She remained in her in-laws place in village Chhachhi for a month and returned to her parents place in village Misda. After 15 days she was taken to village Chhacchi, where delivered a male child. When she was asked by the in- laws, she admitted that the child delivered was that of Lakhan Koshta. On this, in-laws called her father Ramdayal (PW...
Mahmood Khan and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Since W.P.(S) No. 1214, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1224, 1225, 1223, 1226, 1227, 1228 and 1229 of 2011 involve common facts and common question of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Challenge in these petitions is to the orders dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., whereby the petitioners, working on the post of Senior Assistant, Paddy Storage Centre, Basna, Mahasamund, Area Assistant, Paddy Storage Centre, Fundabhata, Durg, Area Assistant, Paddy Storage Centre, Dabrabhata, Kawardha, Senior Assistant, Pady Storage Centre, Mahasamund, Assistant Manager, Paddy Storage Centre, Bagbahra, Mahasamund, Area Assistant, Paddy Storage Centre, Lormi Open, Bilaspur, Senior Assistant, Paddy Storage Centre, Bharni Open, Bilaspur, Assistant Manager, Paddy Storage Centre, Pithor...
Kishore Kumar Ganguly Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2011
(Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973)1. By this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order framing charge dated 13-9-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in the matter of State v. Kishore Kumar Ganguly pending before the Court of Mrs. Kiran Thawait, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has framed charge against the applicant of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.2. As per case of the prosecution, the applicant had executed an agreement in favour of complainant Mrs. Laxmi Manthani on 8-11-1990 relating to plot No.B-28/7 area 50 ft. x 80 ft. situate at New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur and after obtaining Rs.50,000/- towards full amount of sale, possession was handed over to the complainant. Sale deed was required to be executed on behalf of the applicant after o...
Smt Sunita Devi and Others Vs. Kameshwar Singh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
(MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT)RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, district Surguja (for short, `the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.06.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2005.2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Prem Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,35,900/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.3) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2...
Rajesh Sahu Vs. Sanjay Makhija and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. “Whether the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the proceedings of Election Petition filed u/S.122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993? Is the question raised for consideration.” 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Kotni, Tehsil-Aarang, District-Raipur (CG). He was declared elected on 31.1.2010. A certificate to this effect was issued on 3.2.2010. The election of the petitioner was called in question by filing an election petition by respondent No.1 u/S. 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to the Act 1993’). The election petition was filed on 23.4.2010. The election petition was barred by limitation, therefore, the election petitioner also filed an application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The election petition was filed praying a re-count of votes on account of alleged illegality in the process of counting votes. The petitioner, opposed the electi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »