Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Dr Ajay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) was passed for voluntary retirement, w.e.f. afternoon of 31.01.2011, without considering the application dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) seeking withdrawal of the application dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-2). 2. The facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication, in narrow compass, is that the petitioner, who was working as Joint Controller, Weights and Measurement, in the State of Chhattisgarh, made an application under the provisions of Rule 42(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules, 1976") on 30.10.2009 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. afternoon 31.01.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-3), seeking withdrawal of the earlier application dated 31.10.2009, for v...
Mukesh Kumar Shrivastav and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Other ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. WP (S) Nos.6393, 6646 and 7025 of 2009 involve common facts as well as common question of law, thus, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the cancellation order dated 23-10-2009 {Annexure - P/15 to WP (S) No.6393 of 2009} on the ground that without affording proper opportunity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II have been cancelled. 4. The petitioners have relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, which are not relevant to the lis involved in the present cases. 5. Shri Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the basis of the return filed by the State, would submit that there were several irregularities in appointments, as in some cases the candidates including some of the petitioners have not at all a...
Dr Sapna Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and the validity of the revised select list dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the revised merit list has been prepared for appointment on the post of District Ayurved Officer in which the name of the petitioner finds place at S.No.1 in the revised waiting list. 3. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner working as Ayurved Medical Officer applied for the recruitment to the post of District Ayurved Officer. The requisite qualification and experience prescribed in the advertisement was graduation in Ayurved with internship by the recognized institute registered with Bhartiya Chikitsa Kendriya Parishad and working as Ayurved Officer in a Government Hospital or in a Dispensary for minimum 5 years. Clause 8.2 of the advertisement prescribed that on scrutiny of the applications received from the...
Ram Kumar Choubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the services of the petitioner, who was regularized on the post of Sthal Sahayak, by order dated 13.08.2008, was cancelled holding that he was not fit to be retained in service under the condition No. 8 of the appointment order dated 13.08.2008. 2. The brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the lis is that the petitioner was regularized on the post of Sthal Sahayak by order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/3) subject to several terms and conditions. Condition No. 8 of the aforesaid order provides that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to character verification by the police and on verification, if any adverse remark is found, the services would be cancelled without any notice. Accordingly, by order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure P/1) the services of the petitioner was cancelled under condition No. 8 of the appointment order dated 1...
Awadhram Tandon Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(Writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him seniority with all consequential promotional benefits, as per the appointment order dated 25.01.1993 (Annexure P-1). 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records (for short "ASLR") and appointed by the appointment order dated 25.01.1993 (Annexure P-1), through the proper selection conducted by the Public Service Commission (for short "the PSC") in the year 1989. The petitioner, belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. Some junior persons were promoted after granting the seniority, which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment, wherein, it was clearly provided that the seniority of the candidates shall be reckoned and counted on the basis of the select list irrespective of the fact of joining the post. 3. The petitioner submitt...
Chhattisgarh Sponge Iron and Ispat Shramik Sangh Vs. Nova Iron and Ste ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner-union impugns the legality and validity of the award dated 12.05.2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Industrial Court in reference No. 01/C.G.I.R. Act/I/2004 and further seeks a direction to reinstate the contract workers of the petitioner union (for short "the workers") in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a trade union in the name and style of Chhattisgarh Sponge Iron and Ispat Shramik Sangh. The workers of the petitioner union were working in the respondent No.1 factory for a long time and the said factory was not maintaining any statutory records pertaining to employees. Thus, a demand was raised on 23.06.1997 (Annexure P/1). Demand of notice, thereafter, was sent again on 16.02.2001 (Annexure P/2). The matter was sent for conciliation. However, the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus, th...
Devdhar Vs. Aaskaran and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
Oral Order (1) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate court dismissing his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and thereafter fixing the appeal itself for final hearing. (2) Learned counsel would submit that whenever an application for taking additional evidence on record is moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC the same is to be decided along with the hearing of the appeal itself and not at an interim stage. However, ignoring the said settled position of law the first appellate court has passed the impugned order which is palpably illegal. (3) In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and Ors. JT 2000 (Suppl.3) SC 90 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has held thus: "This is entirely for the Court to consider, at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satis...
Nirmala Agrawal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2012
(Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Quashment of FIR Under Crime No. 21/06.) 1. Since Cr.M.P. No. 173/2006 and Cr.M.P. No. 410/2007 are involved common question, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Cr. M.P. No. 173/2006 filed on behalf of petitioner Smt. Nirmala Agrawal and Cr. M.P. No. 410/2007 filed on behalf of petitioner Ram Kumar Netam for not taking any coercive step amounting to harassment on the basis of First Information Report registered in Crime No. 21/2006 by Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Bureau, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)d, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Shukla, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. 4. Copy of First Information Report, copy of other documents relating to Revenue proceedings and copy of Power of Attorney p...
Shrenik Raja Roadways Transport Contractor and Commission Agent Vs. Fo ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-19-2012
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to accept the technical bid of the petitioner and further to open the price bid in respect of item No. 41 and 50 of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short `the NIT') dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P/1) and if the price bid of the petitioner is found to be the lowest, then the petitioner may be awarded the contract. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a proprietor firm engaged in the business of transportation, submitted a tender i.e. technical bid as well as price bid in separate envelopes on 01.10.2010 (Annexure P/9) for transportation of food-grains from Saraipali to Gumla (Jharkhand) at item No.41 and from Basna to Gumla (Jharkhand) shown at item No. 50 in the NIT. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds, as stated in the Committee report (Annexure R/4) that lack of requisite experience, the pa...
Mangala and Another Vs. Dhuruwa and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-19-2012
(Prayer: SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2003 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.03.1993 passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-2, Durg in Civil Suit No. 123A/1991. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: (i) The pedigree of late Seera Singh is as follows: Seera Singh sons ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Amru (Died) wife Chiter Singh (Died) Shri Ram (Died) Soniya (died) Wife Hirabai (Died) (issueless) (Daughter) (Daughters) Kevra Bai (Wife of Shive Prasad (Died on 12.12.86) Dhanbai(D) Daijanbai (D) Rewatibai (D) W/o Nandu - W/o Parsadi W/o Samaru Daughter Kewra Bai kept wife of Shyam Ratan Son and daughters Sadhu(D)-Son (Mangala) (P-1) Santara Bai (D) Sukhchand (D-2) Pandit (P-1) Panchu (...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »