Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Mohd Sami Ansari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
Oral Order (PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23/04/08 passed in Criminal Case No.270/08 registering offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 2. Respondent No.2-Sunil Kumar Jain filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act of 1881") against the petitioner and respondent No.3 on the allegation that in a business transaction, towards discharge of certain liability against purchase of certain items, respondent No.3 had issued a cheque of Rs.2,14,000/- in favour of the complainant. However, when the cheque was presented in the bank on 20/12/08, the same was dishonoured with a note dated 21/01/08 that the fund in the account is insufficient. On the complaint so made, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 23/4/08, after going through the complaint and other documents, found that prima facie c...
K. Sunder Raj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 748/2008. In addition, a direction to the respondents to pay full backwages with all the allowances for the period 19.11.1990 to 30.06.2004 with interest.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, working as Senior Clerk in Mechanical Bill Section, South East Central railway, Bilaspur, was charge- sheeted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having accepted bribe of Rs. 100/- from one Sukhchand on 21.05.1985. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court on 06.10.1990 in Special Case No. 161/1984. On conviction by the Trial Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 19.11.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High ...
Narayan Das Inklab Gandhi Vs. Chandulal Sahu and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
(ELECTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 80/80-A READ WITH SECTION 100 and 101 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951)I.A. No. 5.This is an application for dismissal of the election petition under the provisions of section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short `the Act, 1951.) read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC) filed by the respondent No. 1, the returned candidate for the Lok Sabha election held in 2009 from 09- Mahasamund Constituency, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.1. According to learned counsel for the return candidate/respondent No.1 the election petition is not in accordance with the requirement as laid down under section 83 of the Act, 1951 as the election petition does not disclose any cause of action.2. The election petition has been filed by the election petitioner mainly on the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination papers and secondly, the return candidate has obtained votes by corrupt practice. According...
Smt Rakhi Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
Oral Order (1) This is an application under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transfer of Criminal Case No. 6/2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Pendra or Bilaspur. (2) The applicant is the wife of respondent No.2 Viplav Sharma, their marriage took place on 06/02/2010, however on account of marital dispute and alleged commission of cruelty an F.I.R. was lodged on Crime No. 355/2010 with Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur. On completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and the above said trial is pending. (3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent No.2/husband is a practicing Advocate and one of the accused namely Smt. Simpal Sharma, the respondent No. 7, is posted as A.D.P.O. at Raipur. Dr. Nagendra Sharma is a practicing Advocate at Durg and Mrs. Shilpa Sharma is a Professor in law faculty at Chhattisgarh College. Her husband is a Professor with D.P. Vipra College, Raipur an...
Swaroop Chand JaIn and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
(WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the balance amount with interest and interest on the interest due from the date of acquisition of their property and further, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for hardship and agony sffered by the petitioners.2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that way back in the year1946, the land of the petitioners admeasuring 4.20 acres situated at khasra No. 207/2 at Bhanpuratappur, was acquired by the Forest Department without due process of law. The petitioners made several representations, legal notices and made various correspondences with the respondent authorities for grant of compensation or for allotment of alternate plot, but nothing was done. Later on, in the year 1985, the land acquisition proceeding started by issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act...
Chitrekha Vs. Roop Narayan Verma and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
Oral Order (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Against the ex parte decree dated 5.3.1992 passed by XIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 69-A/1990, the respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 22.6.1992 for setting aside the ex parte decree. Prayer was opposed by the petitioner herein. Trial Court, vide impugned order set aside the ex-parte decree. Hence this petition. 2. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit : the order impugned has been passed by the trial Court without assigning any reason therefor; the process server examined by the petitioner in the case has specifically stated that the summons were refused by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the ground taken in the application that the summons were not duly served upon him is false on the face of record and accordingly the trial...
Puraskar Mercantile Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Albright Steel Industries ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
(PETITION/APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 437 READ WITH SECTIONS 433 (a) AND (f) AND SECTION 434 OF THE COMPANIES ACT)I.A. No. 5 This is an application filed by the opposite party/respondent for dismissal of the petition at the threshold on the ground that the petition has not been filed in accordance with Form No. 45 and 46 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules, 1959').1. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that that though Rule 95 of the Rules, 1959 prescribes for filing application/company petition in Form Nos.45 and 46, however, as the instant petition contains all the essential ingredients, as required in Form Nos. 45 and 46, thus, it is not fatal and the same may not be dismissed at the threshold.2. Shri Sharma would further submit that both the petitions i.e. Company Petition No. 5 and 6 of 2004, were admitted for hearing way back on 12.08.2005 and notices were issued to the respondent. The respondent has filed its re...
Sandhya Tawadkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 29-6-2011 (Annexure - P/1) and further seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to appear in 12th class examination scheduled to be started from 6-7-2011.3. According to the petitioner, after passing the class 10th examination from Maa Annadhary Higher Secondary School, Paharia, District Janjgir-Champa, duly affiliated with the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, the petitioner made frantic efforts to take admission in further classes, but she was denied admission on the ground that her class 10th certificate is of Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, whose recognition has been cancelled by the respondent Board from 16-6-2009.4. Being aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, earlier the petitioner pref...
John and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
(CRIMINAL APPEALS UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.)1. Since the aforementioned two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 27.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 281/1995 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, they are disposed of by this common judgment:2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.3.1994 FIR Ex. P-3 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW 4-A) aged about 14 years at the relevant time alleging that on 29.3.1994 at about 8 p.m. when she was returning after answering the call of nature from behind the fences of one Jhaduram, accused/appellant Bhagat came there, caught hold of her hand, asked her to accompany him to a nearby barren field and on refusal by her, he slapped her twice an...
Subhro Chakravorty Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 10-10-2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the respondents No.3 to 6 have been decided to be appointed as Notaries for the District Headquarter, Durg.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment as Notary Public, pursuant to the advertisement. The committee of two senior Judges, constituted by the District and Sessions Judge, Durg, submitted a panel list wherein the name of the petitioner was recommended. Accordingly, the District Judge sent the recommendation to the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 acting in an illegal manner directed the District Judge to forward all the applications.Accordingly, all the applications were forwarded to the respondent No.1. Thereaft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »