Chhattisgarh Court September 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.
Ravi Lonkar Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.08.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the petitioner, working as Development Officer (Administration) {for short, "the DO (Admn.)"} Bilaspur, has been transferred to Branch Office, Jagdalpur, on administrative grounds.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer of the petitioner is violative of transfer and mobility policy for the DO (Admn.) (Annexure P/3) for transfer from one station to another station. Shri Siddique relies on clause 5.4 of the policy wherein it is provided that an employee from one station to another station shall ordinarily be restricted to a radius of 150 Kms. from his present station of posting.3. In proviso to clause 5.4 of the policy, it is provided that if no office of the company is available within a radius of 150 Kms from the present station of posting of a DO (Admn.) required to be transferred, the Compete...
M/S. Laxmi Construction Co. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
SUNIL KUMAR SINHAT, J. 1.Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, respondent No.3 herein, took a policy decision for registration of the Contractors by fixing certain norms, and circular /order No.785/1424/RC-3/2006 dated 27/1/ 2006 (Annexure-P/6) was issued. Para 3 of the circular reads as under:- 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the last part of Para-3 which says that in case of a Firm or Company seeking registration, the experience of the Partners of the Firm/Directors of the company would not be considered as the experience of the Firm/Company. 3. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned condition in the circular dated 27-1-2006 is impracticable, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court which is Law of the land, therefore, the same may be struck down and the respondents be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for its registration in respective category (S-5) and imp...
Vinod Vs. State of M P Now State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 CrPC) Radhe Shyam Sharma, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th January, 1996 passed in Session Trial No.274/1991 by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgment, appellant Vinod has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 05.6.91, at about 1.15 p.m., deceased Sukalu Ram was returning from the house of Bhikamlal Soni. When he reached near Shastri Square, appellant Vinod and acquitted co-accused persons, namely, Kuljeet Singh and Rambachan stopped him and appellant Vinod demanded money from the deceased for drinking liquor. Upon denial by the deceased, the appellant assaulted the deceased with knife on his chest and ran away. Deceased Sukalu Ram narrated the incident to Bhikamlal Soni and thereafter both went to Police Station Chhawani, Bhilai to lodge the First Information Report (Ex-P/18). Sukalu Ram was...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tameshwar Thakur and Anothe ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
Oral Award (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 25th November, 2009 passed in claim case No.117/2008 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dantewada. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by respondent No.1/claimant by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.09.2008, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,075/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 i.e. driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 18 T-0153; held appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation as according to the Tribuna...
P.K. Mohanan Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
(WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection proceedings held for E-0 grade in Personnel and Administration Department of respondent No. 1, further setting aside the selection of the respondent 2 on the post of E-0 grade. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider and promote the petitioner in E- 0 grade from the date respondent 2 was promoted with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed and joined in the month of February, 1980, as a Private Secretary (PS) in Bhilai Steel Plant (for short `the BSP') of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (for short, `the SAIL'). The petitioner's whole service record was clean and unblemished. At no point of time any disciplinary proceedings or criminal case were pending or contemplated against him. No adverse C.R. was ever communicated to him....
Cbi Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Amit Jogi and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
(Petition under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. By this petition under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code') along with appeal under Section 378 (2) of the Code, the petitioner/Central Bureau of Investigation (for short `the CBI') has prayed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1, dated 31-5-2007 passed by the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, Raipur in Sessions Trial No.329/2005, whereby the Special Judge while convicting some other accused persons has acquitted respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 120B (1), 302 read with Section 34 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Present petition has been filed on 3-5-2011 after 1,373 days of its limitation (wrongly calculated as 1,343 days by excluding ninety days instead of sixty days). The petitioner has filed application I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing...
Shiv Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. In this petition, the petitioners seek a writ/direction to quash the order dated 18th October, 1995 (Annexure P/3) whereby applications were invited from the regular employees working in plant, mines, township and construction, for the post of Junior Executive (Coordination) (for short `the JEC'), order dated 8th May, 1996 (Annexure P/10) whereunder, the respondents. 4 and 5 were appointed on the post of JEC on the basis of selection on probation for a period of six months from the date of taking over the charge of the appointed post and the order dated 12th January,1998 (Annexure P/11) whereby, the respondents 6 and 7 were appointed on the post of JEC on the basis of selection on probation for a period of six months from the date of taking over the charge of the appointed. The petitioners further seek a direction to allow the petitioners 5, 6, 8, E-0 grade at par with the respondents 4 and 5 granting service and monetary bene...
Smt. Punimati Parwati Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
(Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Since W.P. (C) Nos.3106 and 4785 of 2011 arose out of same cause of action; they are being considered and decided by this common order.3. W.P. (C) No.3106 of 2011: In this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 11-5-2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Specified Officer, Bilaigarh, in revenue case No.1-A/89 (21) year 2009-10 (Smt. Parwati Bai v. Smt. Punimati and Others) whereby the election petition preferred by the respondent No.2 {petitioner in W.P. (C) No.4785 of 2011) herein has been allowed and the election of the petitioner herein has been set aside. The petitioner has been declared disqualified for being elected as Sarpanch.4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impinged order has been passed without framing issues and without affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, document...
Shyamu Nishad and Another Vs. Rajendra Surana and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
(Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 11-10-2010 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.16A/2009 whereby the application for impounding the documents insufficiently stamped before receiving the same in evidence, filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/defendants No.2 and 4, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copies of the documents, copy of order of the Collector of Stamps, Raipur and the endorsement made by the Collector of Stamps under Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short `the Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per undisputed facts of the case, the agreement is executed on 25-3-2008 and respondent No.1 has applied for adjudication under Section 31 of the ...
Manharan and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC) Rangnath Chandrakar, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-8-2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.28/2004 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg, after holding the appellants guilty for committing murder of Murari and also causing injuries to Dwarika, Baisakhin Bai, Shankar and Dhaneswari, has convicted them under Sections 302, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months, RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months and RI for two years respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution started on the basis of First Information Report (Ex.P/1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »