Chhattisgarh Court November 2012 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.
Ms S Kumars Associates Akm Jv Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and Oth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition C No 4158 of 2010 Ms S Kumars Associates AKM JV ...Petitioners Versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and others ...Respondents ! Shri Manoj Paranjape counsel for the Petitioner ^ Dr NK Shukla Sr Advocate with Shri Aditya Khare counsel for the respondent CORAM: HONBLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH C J & HONBLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J Dated:07. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (7th November, 2012) WRIT PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLES 22 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 The main point involved in this writ petition is, whether there was contract between the parties so as to attract general terms and conditions applicable to a contract.2. The aforesaid point arises in this case that challenges the recovery notice/ order dated 16.7.2010, issued by the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bhatgaon, District Surguja (the SECL) to M/s. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV) (the Petitioner) requiring it to deposit an amount of `78,07,573/- being the difference in getting...
H L Srivas and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No 4933 of 2008 H L Srivas & Others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Another ...Respondents ! Shri K R Nair ^ Shri Pankaj Shrivastava Shri R S Patel CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:05. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (Delivered on this 05th day of November, 2012) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 The facts, involved in the present writ petition are identical to that of W.P. No. 2438/1997 (Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union & Others v. Management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others) and other connected matters, which are being disposed of today, by a separate judgment.2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), wherein the recognition granted to non-Government Higher Secondary School, Ghordewa, Katghora, has been cancelled and the students of that school were attached to the Government Higher Secondary School, Bankimong...
Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur Vs. Mahendra Karma
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ITA No 5 of 2004 & ITA No 6 of 2004 & ITA No 7 of 2004 & ITA No 8 of 2004 & ITA No 74 of 2003 & ITA No 75 of 2003 Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur ...Petitioners Versus Mahendra Karma Pooranchand Soni ...Respondents ! Mr Anand Dadariya Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals ^ Mr Shashank Dubey Senior Advocate with Mr S S Rajput Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals CORAM: Honble Mr Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre & Honble Mr Justice G Minhajuddin Dated:05. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (05.11.2012) APPEALS UNDER SECTION 260 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Heard. (2) The decision rendered in ITA No.5/2004 shall also govern the disposal of the other connected appeals being ITA Nos.6/2004, 7/2004, 8/2004, 74/2003 & 75/2003, because in all these appeals common question of law is involved . (3) This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (reve...
Varun Steel and Another Vs. the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No 6602 of 2008 Varun Steel & Another ...Petitioners VERSUS The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd & Another ...Respondents ! Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal Senior Advocate with Shri V K Munshi Shri Sourabh Sharma Shri Aditya Sharma and Shri Jatin Josh ^ Shri Sunil Otwani Advocate for the respondents CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:05. 11/2012 : Judgement WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (Delivered on 05th day of November, 2012) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to give any and/or further effect to impugned memo dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P/1), the impugned revised bill dated nil for the period from 16.05.2005 to 30.09.2008 (Annexure P/2) and the impugned notice of disconnection dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure P/3) and/or to forbid them from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the petitioner.2. The facts, in brief, as proj...
Kanker Roadways Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No 784 of 2012 Kanker Roadways ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others ...Respondents ! Shri Gautam Bhaduri Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri Sumesh Bajaj Government Advocate for the respondent No 1 to 3 Shri Raja Sharma Advocate for the respondent No 4 and CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:05. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (Passed on 05th day of November, 2012) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, whereby the application for grant of temporary permit for the route Raipur to Bailadila via Jagdalpur and back, and further the application for grant of permanent permit, on the same route, was rejected.2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was plying its buses from Raipur to Bailadila, from the year 2003. In the year 20...
Shekhar Gupta, Prop. Integrated Solution Vs. Deepak Gupta and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 05.06.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short), passed in Complaint Case No.127/2011, whereby agreeing with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of appellant herein, made by the respondent No.1/complainant, appellant has been directed to return Nokia mobile of the respondent No.1/complainant to him within a period of one month from the date of order after due repair and in case of failure, to pay cost of hand set Rs.8,000/to the complainant. Apart from it, Rs.1,000/as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/as cost of litigation, has also been awarded against the appellant herein. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that a Nokia mobile was purchased by the respondent no.1/complainant on 03.11.2010 from respondent No.2/Anamika Mobile, Ambikapur (C.G.) at the cost of Rs.8,000/. Some defects were generated in the mobile set and therefore, ...
Bhupendra Singh Gujral Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhathisgarh an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO 430.OF 199.Bhupendra Singh Gujral ...Petitioners Versus State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhathisgarh and Others ...Respondents ! Shri B D Guru Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri Pankaj Shrivastava Panel Lawyer for the State CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:02. 11/2012 : Judgement (Delivered on this 02 nd day of November 2012) Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India Heard learned counsel for the parties.1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1-9- 1998 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the petitioner was directed to close the shop No.4 allotted by the Red Cross Society to the petitioner.2. The issue with regard to allotment of shops in the hospital premises came up for consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.P. No.2260 of 1991 (Ram Krishna Tiwari & Another v. State of M.P. & Another), wherein a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 30-4-1997 (Annexure...
Ms Bakhtawar Singh Balkrishan Builders Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ITR No 48 of 2000 Ms Bakhtawar Singh Balkrishan Builders Ltd ...Petitioners VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur ...Respondents ! Mr Shashank Dubey Sr Advocate with Mr D L Dewangan Advocate for the applicant ^ Mr Anand Dadariya Advocate for the respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HONBLE MR G MINHAJUDDIN JJ Dated:02. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (oral) (Passed on 02/11/2012) REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 256 1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196.Per Abhay Manohar Sapre, J:- (1) This is an Income Tax Reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called ".the Tribunal".) under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter called ".the Act".) to this Court at the instance of the assessee to answer the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the a...
Annu Devi Anchal Vs. Smt Anupama Singh Tilakchadi Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C NO 656.OF 201.Annu Devi Anchal ...Petitioner Versus Smt Anupama Singh Tilakchadi Others ...Respondents ! Shri Sunil Otwani Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri Prafull N Bharat Advocate for the respondent Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:01. 11/2012 : Judgement ORDER (Passed on this 01st day of November, 2012) Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) and interim order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dondki, Block & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the first respondent praying that the election petition of the first respondent be accepted and the Presiding Officer be directed to recount the vote...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›