Chhattisgarh Court February 2012 Judgments
Omendra Shah Kunjam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
(Writ Appeal Under Section 2 of Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.) 1. The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.(S) No.7042/2011 (Annexure A-1), whereby, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant before the Single Judge was that the father of the petitioner namely Shri Vikram Shah Kunjam, working as Village Assistant (Gram Sahayak) died on 05.08.1992 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 21.08.2009 for grant of compassionate appointment. The respondent No.2, by the impugned order dated 06.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) rejected the application on the ground that under memo No.F/7-4/2002/1-3, Raipur, dated 10.06.2003, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, the application for compassionate appointment may be made within three or six months from the date of death of the employee. Accordingly, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Smt. Ansuiya Dutt Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure P/8) whereby the petitioner, working as Assistant Professor (Ophthalmic Department) at Pt. J.N. Memorial Medical College, Raipur, has been relieved to join at Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. Further, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) to be operative only for the Government Medical College, Bilaspur and Jagdalpur. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is posted as Assistant Professor (Ophthalmic Department) in the respondent No.3/Medical College. An audit was conducted in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, wherein it was found that 21 Doctors were appointed on deputation basis, who were not included in the set up as well as they were not fulfilling the norms of Indian Medical Association. Thus, they were to be relived from the duties a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insur ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
S.C. Vyas, President This appeal is directed against order dated 01.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short), passed in Complaint Case No.298/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, seeking compensation from the respondent/Insurance Company on account of damages to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed on the ground that at the time of the incident, the insured vehicle was being driven by a person, who was having a forged licence and was not permitted by a competent authority to drive the vehicle in question. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that, the complainant is a Transporter and was having vehicle bearing No.C.G.04/J.B.7077 for transport business, which was a Heavy Goods Vehicle. The said vehicle suffered damages in the road accident on 24.09.2008 to the tune of Rs.71,555/-. Complainant claimed that amount, along with other amount from the respondent/Insurance Company, but the Insur...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Lalita Bai Vs. Piyush Rathore, Prop. Mahanadi Tractor and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Oral: S.C. Vyas, President: 1. This appeal is directed against, order dated 05.08.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short), passed in Complaint Case No.39/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, for claim of compensation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of both respondents in sale of the tractor, in collecting excessive price of the said tractor and in not providing proper documents and not getting the vehicle duly registered and thus committing deficiency in service, has been dismissed. 2. Shri Hariklal, the husband of the complainant/appellant was the person, to whom under a Scheme of Government of India, the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned by respondent No.2 for purchase of tractor of Tafe 241 D.I. along other instruments at the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Area Manager of the Company. The said person Shri Hariklal, died later on, after filing orig...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Lal Sahu Vs. Gram Panchayat Bahatarai District Bilaspur and Other ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
(Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.27-A/93, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit dated 29.7.93 passed by the Additional Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.128-A/92, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to tank filed on behalf of the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on 12.7.96 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant in whose favour the tank was settled shall continue to be the owner of the property or whether under the provisions of section 251 the property would merge in the State ?...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padma and Others Vs. Prabhat Bajpayee and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE) 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Bastar, in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/02. 2. Facts in brief are as under: (i) Original plaintiff - Prabhat Bajpayee filed a suit for declaration of title; rectification of sale deed, possession and mesne profits. (ii) According to plaintiff, he purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No. 50 Area 2 Acres situated in Village Shasankachora from defendants No.1 and 2 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 18.05.1977 and obtained its possession. (iii) In the year 1994, he came to know that in the sale deed the name of village has wrongly been mentioned as Hatkachora in place of Shasankachora. Vide notice dated 25.11.1994 he asked defendants No. 1 and 2 for rectification of above mistake. No reply was given by the defendants. (iv) The suit land st...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir Rizvi Vs. Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(CIVIL REVISION U/S 89 (3) OF WAQF ACT) 1. Instant revision filed by the petitioner under proviso to Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short `the Act') is directed against the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Chhattisgarh State Wakf Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth "the Wakf Tribunal") in MJC (Civil) No.02/2011. 2. The petitioner filed an application before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 (2) of the Act, 1995 before the Wakf Tribunal claiming himself to be lifetime Mutawalli of Syed Baba Hazrat Fateshah, Raipur, for annulling election of respondent No.2 as Mutawalli. 3. The Tribunal vide order impugned dismissed the petitioner's application. Hence, this revision. 4. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the petitioner was appointed as lifetime Mutawalli according to bye-laws of the Wakf and respondent No.1 is not authorised under the Act to remove him and elect respondent No.2 as Mutawalli de hors the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 1-2-2012 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the respondent No.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, District Balod to the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujgani, District Balrampur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malaise of frequent transfers because by order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Duldula, District Jashpur to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Koriya. Thereafter, by order dated 30-8-2011 (Annexure - P/2) from Baikunthpur to Dondi, District Balod and afterwards within a period of four months by the impugned order dated 1-2-2012 the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Died and Deleted and Others Vs. Phulkunwa Bai and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC) 1. I.A.No.8 for taking documents on record is dismissed summarily. 2. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1995 passed by the 6th Additional District Jude, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.47-A/94, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.3.94 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Gariyaband, in Civil Suit No.11-A/88, dismissing the suit for declaration, injunction and possession filed on behalf of the respondents against original defendant Baishakhu. 3. The present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on 8.1.96 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the courts below were justified in holding that Vaishakhu did not succeed to the property under the will dated 7-6-79 ? 4. As per plaint allegation, the property in dispute total area 2.886 hecta...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. R.K. Transport, Korba and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and O ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 22-3-2011 (Annexure P/1), by which, the registration of petitioner No.1 as A-5 Contractor with the Public Works Department has been cancelled with immediate effect. 2. Petitioner No.1 was registered as A-5 Contractor with the Public Words Department. It was awarded the work for construction of road (Sargaon-Panchariya) length 20.06 kms. The aforesaid construction was completed on 30-6-2009. The Chief Engineer, after more than a period of one year of the completion of work, i.e. on 1-10-2010, inspected the road and found it to be in bad condition. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24-2-2011, making categorical statement that on the above account why the registration of the petitioner may not be cancelled under Appendix 3 of circular No.7652/9697/19/YO/99 dated 19-11-1999, issued by the Public Works Department. 3. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »