Chhattisgarh Court February 2012 Judgments
Chitranjan Das and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Since, W.P.(S) Nos. 1025, 1026, 1027, 737, 738, 763, 764, 767, 785, 797, 800, 802, 853, 870, 871, 895, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 906, 926, 927, 929, 930 and 941 of 2012 involve the same facts and grounds, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the respondent authorities by which the petitioners working on the post of Revenue Inspector were transferred from one district to other district. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners jointly submit that while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2012, the respondent authorities have not followed the memo dated 08.08.2011, wherein, it was provided that an employee can be transferred in emergent situation only in coordination of the Chief Secretary and on approval of the Chief Minister. 4. Learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal and Others Vs. Ramjee Son of Dinesh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Kawardha in Civil Appeal No.34-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1996 passed by the Civil Judge Class-2 in Civil Suit No. 139-A/1994. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Courts below have fallen into error by non-suiting the plaintiffs on the ground that defendants No.1 to 3 have perfected their title on the land bearing Khasra No. 181 by adverse possession when admittedly it is a case of permissive possession by way of exchange of land between the parties? (2) Whether exchange of land having value more than Rs.100/- can be transacted without any document being registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) Admittedly, the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar and Others Vs. Aswani Kumar and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
(FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. This is defendants' first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity `the C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 7-A/1994 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs' suit has been decreed. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 - Smt. Triveni @ Rita Sharma and respondents No.7 have died and since their legal representatives were already on record, their names were deleted from the memo of appeal. 3. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- (i) The respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of their half share, joint possession, permanent injunction and for declaration of will deed dated 4.1.1990 (Ex.D.1) as illegal, suspicious, unauthorized and not binding on them. (ii) The suit property is the house situated at Gondpara and land bearing Kh.No.13 area 2.22 acres situated at village Binjhou...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshwar Poya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on death of his father namely Shri Krishna Kumar, working as Assistant Teacher, who died in harness, has been rejected. 2. Shri Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application on 14.09.2007 within a period of three years from the death of the deceased employee on 08.11.2004. Shri Prajapati, further submits that in the circular dated 02.02.2006 (Annexure R-2), there is no mention with regard to application or rules for the dependant who is minor at the time of death of the deceased employee, thus, the earlier circular would be applicable. 3. In circular dated 01.05.2000 (Annexure P-8), in clause 4, it has been mentioned that if there is no adult member in the family, a minor who attains majority within three years can...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Ledwani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.07.2006 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner working as Driver in Transport Department, on deputation, has been repatriated back to his parent department i.e. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short `the CIDC') and to allow the petitioner to continue on deputation in the transport department in pursuance of the order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P/2). 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Driver by the Divisional Selection Committee, Raipur in the services of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Raipur vide order dated 23.03.1984. After carving out of the State of Chhattisgarh from the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Sahu and Others Vs. Pt Ravishankar University and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to allow them to appear in both the examinations of the third year and the fourth year together, which was scheduled in September, 2010; and compensate the petitioners adequately. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were the students of the second academic year, prosecuting Four Year Bachelors Degree in Dental Surgery in Maitry College of Dentistry and Research Centre, G.E. Road, Anjora, Durg. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were not allowed to appear in the third year examination, which was held from 26 March, 2010 to 05 April, 2010. 3. The respondent-University, by order dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure P/1) granted special permission for the batch of the third year and the fourth year examinees of 2005-2006 to appear in the main examination held in September, 2009. In the said order, it was made clear...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Banchhor and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner No. 3, who is the son of petitioner No. 1 and 2, from payment of tuition fee and further to refund the entire amount of tuition fee paid by the petitioner No. 1 in respect of petitioner No. 3 with interest at the rate of 17% per annum. 2. The facts, in brief are that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner No. 3, who was admitted to Government Engineering College, RAipur. The petitioner No. 1 and 2, on account of undergoing family planning operation were granted green card. Thus, the petitioner No. 3 became entitled to exemption from payment of tuition fee in engineering course, under the circular dated 30.11.1989. The grant of exemption from payment of tuition fee for medical/engineering colleges is also provided clearly in the green card (Annexure P/1). The petitioner No. 3 made a representation to the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Chhattisgarh State Taekwondo Association Bilaspur and Others Vs. Taekw ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
(Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioners pray to hold the meeting held and the office bearers elected in the meeting held on 28.04.2011 is illegal and election of office bearers elected on 31.07.2010 is valid and legal and also hold that the recognition granted by the respondent No.1 - Taekwondo Federation of India (for short "TFI") to the election held on 28.04.2011 vide letter dated 03.05.2011 is also illegal and bad in law. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No.1 – Chhattisgarh State Taekwondo Association (for short "the petitioner Association") is a registered body under the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1973"). The petitioner Association obtained the recognition certificate from the Directorate, Sports and Youth Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh and it has its own memorandum of association. The previous elect...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Aaditya Agencies Bilaspur
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J 1. This is a reference under section 44(i) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short `the Act, 1958)'. The reference was admitted for hearing on 29.072011. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the non-applicant is a dealer of medicines and surgical equipments. For the period from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988, the non-applicant submitted its return and the said firm was assessed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (for short `ASTO'), Bilaspur. In the order dated 30.04.1992, passed by the ASTO, a tax of Rs. 6610/- was assessed and after imposing penalties under various heads and after deducting the amount already paid, a demand notice to the tune of Rs. 1982/- was directed to be issued. Against the said order, the non-applicant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Sales Tax, Bilaspur. Therein, the contention of the non-applicant was that the first notice of tax assessment was issued by ASTO, Ward C, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Garg and Another Vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
S.C. Vyas, President. 1. This appeal is directed against, order dated 25.02.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short), passed in Complaint Case No.381/2006, whereby the complaint of the appellants herein, has been dismissed on the ground that they have failed to establish the allegation of any deficiency in service against the respondents herein, and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. 2. The case of the complainants before District Forum was that, they reside jointly and do the work of agriculture jointly. For the purpose of irrigation facilities in their fields, supply orders were issued to the respondents for supply of Netafim Drip Irrigation System Pipe of length of 1,34,697.55 metres. As per orders, the width of the Pipe was to be 1.1 M.M. and the discharge of water from the Pipe should be 1.3 litre. It was agreed that the said Pipe would be sold @ Rs.10.85 per metre and the amount was paid in advance ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »