Chhattisgarh Court June 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.
Luv Kumar Sharma Vs. Collector Cum District Magistrate Bilaspur and Ot ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings initiated and orders passed in the order sheets (Annexure - P/1) by the respondent No.1 in case No. 02/B-121/2008- 09 being illegal, non-est, inoperative and void ab initio in the eyes of law and also seeks an appropriate writ restraining the respondents No.2 and 3 from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner.3. According to the petitioner, on 23-7-2003 the petitioner approached the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur for allotment of the house. The respondent No.2 executed an agreement dated 28-7-2003 in favour of the petitioner in respect of house LIG 29 under the Yadunandan Nagar Housing Scheme for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the ...
Vijay Prasad Chaudhary Vs. Mamta Devi and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
Oral Order (1) Heard. (2) In this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. the applicant has called in question the order passed by the trial Court allowing the respondent Mamta Devi's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. and thereby setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 20/02/2001. (3) After passing of the ex-parte judgment and decree on 20/02/2001 the respondent No.1 moved the subject application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree on submission that she has never refused to accept notice and the Postman has made wrong endorsement of her refusal and thus the ex-parte decree deserves to be set-aside. Trial Court has accepted the plea and the ex-parte judgment and decree has been set-aside by the impugned order. (4) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that once an endorsement has been made by the Postman regarding refusal of the noticee to accept the postal material containing the summons issued by the Court, it should have...
Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Icici Bank Limited
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
Oral Order (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Respondent/plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 of CPC for recovery of loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,17,171/- against the petitioner/defendant. After service of notice, the petitioner moved an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of leave to defend. 2. The trial court, vide order impugned, allowed petitioners' application and granted leave to defend subject to condition of furnishing bank guarantee of the amount equivalent to the amount claimed in the suit. 3. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of the part of order impugned whereby the trial court granted leave to defend subject to condition of furnishing bank guarantee of the amount equivalent to the amount claimed in the suit. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit imposition of conditio...
Smt. Sunder Bai and Another Vs. Loop Singh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 1. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, district Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 11-1-2008, passed in Claim Case No.18/2007. 2. As against the consolidated compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants by filing a claim petition under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by claimants Smt. Sunder Bai and Narottam and for the death of their minor daughter Khusboo, aged about 1 years in the motor accident on 12-4-2007, the Tribunal awarded Rs.31,500/- for the death of the claimants’ daughter Khusboo; Rs. 22,300/- for the injuries sustained by claimant Smt. Sunder Bai; and Rs.7,000/- for the injuries sustained by claimant Narottam, 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 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Ajmer Khan and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
(Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988) 1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 27-1-2007 passed in Claim Case No. 50/2006 by IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Raipur, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment in favour of claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 and against owner and insurer of the vehicle and fastened the liability on them to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 21-12-2005 at about 1.00 p.m. when deceased Alham was going on road, all of a sudden, respondent No.3 - Lokesh Kumar driving the offending vehicle - Metador bearing registration No. CG-04/0961 rashly and negligently dashed the deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. 3. A...
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Karuna Shukla and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
Order (Oral) I.M. Quddusi, J; 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay, as the instant appeal has been preferred with a delay of 61 days. 2. For the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, it is allowed and the delay in preferring the instant appeal is condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 4. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act, 1988'), the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 18.11.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.115/09. 5. The appellant had not only challenged liability part of the impugned award but also questioned the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal and in this regard permission under Section 170 of the Act has been granted to the appellant. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.08.2009 Kishore Kumar Shukla (sin...
Mangmati Widow and Others Vs. Mohammed Ikram Khan and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
(Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988) N.K. Agarwal, J 1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the IInd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh vide its award dated 24-3-2005 passed in Claim Case No. 36/2004. 2. On an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the claimants/appellants claiming Rs. 26,86,960/- as compensation for the death of Dhaneshwar in the accident dated 1-2-2004 by truck bearing registration No. CG-13/ZC-0356, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,02,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its payment against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. 3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led held, the deceased died in the said accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the offending truck; the vehicle was insured with the responde...
Laleshwari Bai Vs. Anil Khandelwal and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
Order (Oral) I.M. Quddusi, J 1. Heard. 2. The non-applicant No.4-appellant herein has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 05.05.2008 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for brevity `the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.14/07. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.6.2006 Bhuneshwar Sahu (since deceased) was returning along with non-applicant No.1 from his native place Semra, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari to Raipur on the motorcycle bearing registration number CG04-CF-9220. Bhuneshwar was traveling in the said motorcycle as pillion rider. At about 11.30 a.m. when they reached near Chitrakoot Dhaba, Abhanpur, the tyre of motorcycle got burst as a result the driver lost control over it and both of them fell down. Bhuneshwar Singh sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious. He was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur from where he was transferred to MMI Hospital, Raipur where he di...
Jawaharlal Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. By this petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ha prayed for following reliefs: “7. 1. The petitioner above named most respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to call for the entire records of the case. 7.2. The petitioner above named most respectfully prays to the Hon’ble Court to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the orders contained in documents Annexure P/6 and Annexure P/8. 7.3. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to the Hon’ble Court to issue writ of mandamus and appropriate directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on with mining lease. 7.4. Any other relief, which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The factual backdrop of events giving rise to instant petition is that the petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease of lime stone in an area satiated in village - Ghodari, District - Mahasamund. O...
Kusum @ Suman Yadav and Another Vs. Dulli Bai and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
Oral Order (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA) 1. In an eviction suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), "defence against eviction" was struck off by the trial Court under Section 13(6) of the Act. The trial Court although permitted defendants/petitioners for cross examination of plaintiffs' witnesses but denied the opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, this petition 2. Shri R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit : petitioners have taken a specific defence in the case under general law that the respondents are not owners/landlords of the suit house. Specific issue has also been framed by the trial Court in this regard, therefore, the petitioners are within their right to prove their defence taken under general law and for that purpose they are entitled to lead evidence inspite of the fact that their defence has already been struck o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »