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.
The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation and Another Vs ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in the above petitions, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.07.2004 [in WP(L) No. 1431/2007] passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, the order dated 24.03.2005 [in W.P.(L) No. 2468/2007] passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, and the orders dated 07.01.2008, passed by the Labour Court, Raipur and the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur [in W.P.(227) No. 5638/2009]. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1, namely Bansh Bahadur Singh and Ramkumar Sahu, [in W.P.(L) No. 1431/2007 and W.P.(227) No. 5638/2009, respectively] and Mohan Singh Rajput, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. and 2 to 9 [in W.P.(L) No. 2468/2007) were working as conductor with the Madhy...
R Mukhopadhyay Vs. Coal India Ltd and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing in person submits that the petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the office memorandum dated January 14th, 1998, however, aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) to the extent that the petitioner has made a representation in representative capacity and the same has been rejected. 2. On perusal of the pleadings and fair admission of Mr. Mukhopadhyay, it is a case where the petitioner is seeking redressal of grievances of the widows of the officers who had been working in the respondent company. 3. Be that as it may, it is a well settled principles of law that no service matter in public interest, is maintainable in a representative capacity, if the other persons on whose behalf the petitioner is filing the petition, are aggrieved, they may approach the Court directly, as it is a question of payment of gratuity to the dependents of the employees, who had been working with ...
Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.7.2007 passed in Session Trial No. 8/2007 by the Additional Session Judge, Balod, District Durg (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:- ConvictionSentenceAppellant- Shiv Kumar: u/s 302 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I for 1 year.u/s 364 IPCR.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for 1 year.Appellant- Tikendra Kumar: u/s 302/34 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for 1 year.u/s 364 IPCR.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for 1 year.(2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 21.8.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. accused Shiv Kumar and his brother- Basant went to the house of Shivram Sinha. They were demanding their money. Shivram Sinha called Vijay Kumar ...
C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited and Another Vs. Sanjay S ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
S.C. Vyas, President: 1. This appeal has arisen out of the order, dated 18.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short), passed in Complaint Case No.36/2010,whereby the appellants herein, have been directed to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its recovery till date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation and also not to enforce the demand bill of Rs.1,81,101/- issued by Electricity Supply Company to the complainant/respondent as additional bill. 2. The case of the complainant/respondent before District Forum was that an industry was being run by him after seeking financial assistance from Khadi Gramodyog Board, under the category of Small Industry and thereafter the electricity supply connection was sought from the appellants herein, which was provided after execution of documents between the parties containing terms and conditions ...
C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited Vs. Fattechand Bagdi
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
S.C. Vyas, President: 1. This appeal has arisen out of the order, dated 16.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short), passed in Complaint Case No.29/2010, whereby the appellant herein, has been directed not to insist upon the letter dated 22.01.2010 issued by it to the complainant/respondent and the bill of Rs.56,441/- has been quashed by the District Forum and appellant has been directed to refund the amount of 28,220/-, which was deposited under protest by the complainant, along with amount of Rs.1,780/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation, along with interest 9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.05.2010 till date of payment. 2. In nut shell, the facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was consumer of the appellant and availed services of electricity supply for the purpose of running Pramod Poha Mill, where he prepare Murra and Poha. It has been asserted in the complaint that the complainant wa...
Vishnu Sahu and Others Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
(Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Since WP (S) Nos.6797, 6032, 6114, 6251, 6256, 6267, 6289, 6294, 6302, 6324, 6365, 6491, 6492, 6500, 6501, 6502, 6562, 6563, 6567, 6573, 6605, 6606, 6664, 6672, 6713, 6720, 6740, 6767, 6795, 6799, 6800, 6801, 6802, 6803, 6804, 6805, 6806, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6810, 6813, 6814, 6815, 6822, 6823, 6843, 6846, 6851, 6875, 6890, 6898, 6934, 6951, 6952, 6958, 6967, 6974, 6979, 7022, 7055, 7117, 7135, 7155, 7320, 7323, 7367, 7371, 7387, 7422, 7529, 7562, 7571, 7604, 7605, 7606, 7607, 7608 and 7647 of 2010 and W.P. (S) Nos.73, 115, 120, 139, 237, 621, 685 and 3752 of 2011 involve common facts as well as common question of law, thus, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in this batch of petitions is to the advertisements dated 27.10.2010, 27.09.2010, 29.10.2010, 08.10.2010, 14.10.2010, 12.10.2010, 22.10.2010 and 21.10.2010 issued by the District Education Officers, Durg, Baloda Bazar, Dha...
Moolchand Kotdiya Vs. Dr. Paraschand Vaidya
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908) 1. This is defendants'/tenants' second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Appeal No.12-A/1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1998 passed by the Civil Judge Class-1 in Civil Suit No. 67-A/1991. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether in view of the evidence on record) and non-examination of plaintiff/respondent in person after amendment of pleading, the bona fide requirement was not duly proved? (2) Whether the plea raised by the defendants/appellants regarding title of landlord amounts to disclaimer of title? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) According to the plaintiff, he purchased two shops situated at main road, Sadar Bazar, Mungeli including suit accommodation vide registered sale deed dated 31st March, 1980 from one Prafulla Kum...
O. S. Vasukuttan Vs. Industrial Court Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
(Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 12.08.2002 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No.39/M.P.I.R. Act/96 (Shri O.S. Vasukuttan vs. Managing Director, SAIL) and Appeal No. 40/M.P.I.R. Act/96 (Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Shri O.S.Vasukuttan). 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner was employed as Scale Car Operator, in the Blast Furnace Department of Bhilai Steel Plant and the petitioner's token number was 24031 and P. No. was 68711. On 23.01.1985, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner stating that he was absenting from his duties since 13.10.1983 unauthorizedly without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. However, in the said charge sheet it was mentioned that the petitioner has sent leave application from his home State i.e. Kerala. 3. Thereafter, ...
Kartikram Shrivas Vs. Personal Manger Secl and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
ORAL AWARD (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT) 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Korba (for short ‘the Commissioner') in case No. 48/WCAct/2007(N.F.) whereby and whereunder the Commissioner has ordered registration of Memorandum of Agreement presented before him by the employer, i.e. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, the instant appeal has been preferred by the employee i.e. appellant herein. 2. According to the appellant, the appellant is an employee working as Optometry Technician Grade B under the employment of respondents. As per the direction of respondent No.2, on 17.01.2007 when he was taking the patient namely Umesh Kumar Sahu in the Ambulance from Gevra to Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur, on way at Pali, the Ambulance hit the stationary Truck, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. Thereafter, the appellant was under the treatment of Nehru Shatabdi Hospita...
Bhuwan Lal Sahu Vs. Leeladhar Prasad Chandrakar and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
I.Q. QUDDUSI, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment/order dated 1st of August, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.(C) No.46/2011 (Leeladhar Prasad chandrak v. State of Chhattisgarh), whereby the appointment of appellant Bhuwan Lal Sahu (respondent No.3 in writ petition) to the post of Notary was quashed and directed that the vacant seat should be filled up by issuing fresh advertisement. W.A.No.383/2011 has been filed by appellant Bhuvanlal Sahu (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) whereas W.A. No.404/2011 has been filed by appellant Leeladhar Chandrakar, petitioner of the writ petition. Since both the appeals involve similar facts and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the State published a notification in the year 2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Notaries in the territorial jurisdiction of Raipur Civil Court. Pursuant to the advertiseme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›