Chhattisgarh Court August 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.
Matoshri Developers and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
(Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India)1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of crime No.241/2010 registered in Police Station Sarsiwa, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm whereas the petitioner No.2 is one of the partners of the petitioner No.1. Deed of partnership was executed on 3-7-2009 (Annexure - P/1) and the registration certificate was issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies on 1-1-2010 (Annexure - P/2).3. According to the petitioners, on 4-7-2009, a written agreement was reached between the petitioner society and Royal Vision Care Marketing and Services Private Limited (earlier respondent No.6, which has been deleted by order dated 13-7-2011 of this Court on the request of the petitioners, at the peril of the petitioners) for sale of cert...
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Vs. Gurubari Bai and ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
Oral Order (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN'S COMEPNSATION ACT, 1923) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the employer against the impugned award 21.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act (Labour Court) Rajnandgaon in Case No.1/WC Act/05 (Fatal) directing to deposit compensation of Rs.3,38,880/- along-with interest @ 6% per annum as also the penalty @ 30% of the award that is Rs.1,01,664/-. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 22.12.2006 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon vide its Award dated 21.09.2006 was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs.1,01,664/- (Rupees One Lakh one thousand six hundred sixty four) without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant ignoring the provision of Sec. 4-A(3)(b) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ? 3. During the course of hearing the following substantial ques...
Ravi Lonkar Rajendra Singh Thakur Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company L ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Since both the above writ petitions viz. W.P.(S) No. 4850/2010 (hereinafter referred to as `the first petition') and W.P.(S) No. 5324/2010 (hereinafter referred to as `the second petition') involve common facts and questions of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. By these petitions, the petitioner (in the first writ petition) seeks quashing of impugned order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Development Officer (Administration) at Bilaspur, has been directed to be posted as Extension Counter In-charge, at Manendragarh, and in the second writ petition, to the order dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Development Officer (Administration) at Raigarh has been transferred to Pendra Road, as Extension Counter In-charge.3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed as Inspector (Development Off...
Md Ajij Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the police authorities, even after registering F.I.R. against the accused persons, the challan has not been filed and the police authorities are not proceeding with the matter.2. Be that as it may, section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code, 1973') provides for redressal of grievance in such a case wherein the petitioner can make a complaint to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and further, under section 156(3) of the Code, 1973, the Magistrate is fully empowered to order an investigation as mentioned in other provisions of section 156 of the Code, 1973. Thus, on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner, it would not be proper for this Court to make any direction when the effective remedy of approaching to the Magistrate under the above stated provisions of law, is available. If there is undue delay...
Priya Gupta and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
(WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. By these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby their admissions to the M.B.B.S. Course have been cancelled. The petitioners are also challenging the directions of the State issued in Annexure P-2 dated 10.09.2010 for lodging the First Information Report. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioners are that they had appeared in Pre-Medical Test conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2006. Petitioner Akanksha Adile secured general Rank as 3893 and as she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, her rank in S.C. category was 396. Petitioner Priya Gupta secured general rank as 1614. The counseling was held for Jagdalpur Medical College on 22nd and 23rd August 2006 and 2 seats from central quota were reverted back to Jagdalpur Medical College vide Annexure P-4 dated 08.08.2006 and ...
Dev Kumar Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
(Delivered on 08th day of August, 2011)(Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India)1. Since WP (227) Nos.1151 and 1263 of 2009, WP (S) Nos.2848, 2935, 7140 and 7481 of 2009, WP (S) Nos.1159 and 2108 of 2010, WP (S) No.1345 of 2009, involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Challenge in these petitions is to the orders dated 23-12-2008, 23-12-2008, 23-12-2008, 30-1-2009 and 23-12-2008 passed by the Director Panchayat in WP (227) No.1151/2009, WP (S) No.2935/2009, WP (S) No.2848/2009, WP (227) 1263/2009 and WP (S) No.2108/2010, respectively and the orders dated 24-11-2008, 16-11-2009, 16-11-2009 and 16-11-2009 passed by the Collector in WP (S) No.1345/2009, WP (S) No.7140/2009, WP (S) No.7481/2009 and WP (S) No.1159 of 2010, respectively, by which the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III has been cancelled.3. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, a...
Tarendra Singh Atri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
(WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006)SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4092/2007 (Tarendra Singh Atri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Two Others). It is ordered as prayed for.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for payment of increments from the date given to the respondent No.2 i.e. on the basis of his appointment on the post of Food and Civil Supply Inspector and further re- fixation of his payment and grant of consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and interest @ 18% therein.3. The appellant was appointed as Food and Civil Supply Inspector vide order dated 22.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) for a period of two years on probation. He could not complete his probation within two years. Thereafter, on extended period of probation, he completed probation on 12.01.1992, as informed to him vide order dated 15...
Pragya Pawar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
(Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)1. W.P. (C) Nos.1568, 1580, 1581, 1626 and 1673 of 2011, involve the common question of law and facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. By these petitions, the petitioners pray to set aside the impugned orders dated 7-3-2011, 8-3-2011, 15-3-2011, 19-3-2011 and 21-3-2011 and further seek a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to appear in the annual examination of their respective classes in the academic session 2010-11.3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are the regular students of respondent No.3 - Shashkiya Maata Sabari Naveen Kanya Mahavidyalaya (for short `the respondent college') duly affiliated with the respondent No.2 - Guru Ghasidas University (Central) (for short `the respondent University') for the academic session of 2010-11 of BA/BCA/B.Com. Part I, II and III. Accordingly, the students filled up their applica...
R.C. Dubey Vs. State of Mp and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006.)1. The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure A/1) passed in W.P.(S) No. 3033 of 2005 (R.C.Dubey v. Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Others) passed by the learned Single Judge.2. The appellant/petitioner preferred an application before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur, being O.A. NO. 779/1999, which was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.(S) No. 3033/2005. The appellant challenged the supercession and promotion of his junior i.e. respondent No. 4 on the post of Upper Division Clerk, (Assistant Grade II), on several grounds. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, held that adverse remark in the Annual Confidential Report (for short `ACR') considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short `the DPC') held on 25.04....
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Gouri Gupta and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
Oral Order (MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. All the respondents except the driver i.e., respondent no.7 have been served. Therefore, service of respondent no.7 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Claim Case No.48/2005 in so far as it relates to quantum part only. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 21.04.2005 deceased Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta was going to village Baraili from Ambikapur by riding Hero Honda Motorbike bearing Regn. No. C.G. 15-ZH/9513 (Old No. 27-D/9618) for attending his duty. At about 7.15 a.m., on the Main road of village Chaindra, a Truck bearing Regn.No.ZC/0757 which was being driven by respondent no.7 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, due to which, Rajeshwar Prasad sustained grievous injur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »