Chhattisgarh Court July 2012 Judgments
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and Others Vs. Bhilai Cement Company P. Ltd.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
ORDER 1. Company Petitions No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of 2010 involve the same facts and question of law and, as such, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. By these petitions, filed under the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short "the Act, 1956") the petitioners are seeking a direction to wind up the respondent Company namely; Bhilai Cement Company Private Ltd. and the official liquidator be directed to take charge of books, assets and properties of the respondent company, forthwith. 3. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 270250/, Rs. 216200/-, Rs. 216200/-, Rs. 162150/-, Rs. 540097/-, Rs. 512385/- and Rs. 216200/-, respectively, on interest at the rate of 24% per annum. According to the petitioners, due to losses incurred by the respondent Company the interest payable on the said amount was not paid since 1st April, 1999. In fact, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Rukman Bai Vs. Sukhman Bai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of C. P. Code against the judgment/decree dated 11/8/1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Manendragarh in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/93 which in turn arise out of judgment and decree dated 23/2/93 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No. 32-A/85. 2. By impugned judgment and decree, both the Courts below (trial Court and first appellant Court) dismissed appellant's suit/first appeal respectively and declined to grant decree to the appellant's in her suit which was filed for seeking declaration of her exclusive title in suit land. 3. So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether two Courts below were justified in dismissing appellant's suit/first appeal? 4. Facts of the case need mention to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal. In fact they lie in a narrow compass:- 5. The appellant is the plaintiff whe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalawati Kotla Vs. Shokilal and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (1) Heard. (2) This is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of the C.P.Code against the judgment and decree dated 17th of August 1993 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.34-A/1987, which in turn arise out of judgment and decree dated 6th of November 1987 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.1-A/1986. (3) By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed plaintiff's suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. (4) So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby, justified in decreeing plaintiff's claim made in the suit against the defendant in relation to the suit property. ? (5) This second appeal was admitted for f...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Prasad Patel Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 3rd May, 2010 {Annexure - P/10 (sic Annexure - P/7)} passed by the General Manger, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur Area, whereunder the application of the petitioner for change of date of birth from 1st August, 1945 to 1st January, 1946, as per the Primary School Certificate (Annexure - P/1), has not been accepted. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of this petition, are that the petitioner joined the services of respondent - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short "SECL") as casual labour on 1st July, 1976. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in service book as 1st August, 1945. In the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1st July, 1946 (Annexure P/3). In the salary slip (Annexure P/4), the date of birth of the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Beena Rai and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
ORDER (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.03.2012 (Annexure P-1), on the basis of select list for appointment on the post of Mobile Resource Adviser. 2. In the advertisement dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure P-3), the qualification prescribed for appointment on the basis of Mobile Resource Adviser was Higher Secondary School pass certificate and diploma or degree in visually impaired, hearing impaired, mentally retarded or any other disability impairment course by the recognized Institute of Rehabilitation Council of India (for short " the RCI"). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on a list (Annexure P-8) prepared by the authorities, submits that the diploma/degree obtained by the selected candidates are not in accordance with the diplomas/degrees approved by the RCI. The petitioner has produced minimum requirement of RCI approved qualification for appointment of Special E...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pramodani Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the service period which the petitioner has rendered as a daily wager for the purpose of calculation of pension and gratuity. 2. The facts are, in narrow compass, that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.01.1980 on daily wages basis on the post of Copyist and continued as daily wager till he was regularized i.e. on 11.01.1988. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 15.10.2008 (Annexure P/6), it was proposed by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur that the case of the petitioner be considered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Work-charged/Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1974 and accordingly, proposal for pension was made. It appears that the period before the petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!Ku Seema Tripathi Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short `the CGPSC') to exempt the petitioner from appearing in NET/SLET examination in the light of Amended Regulation 2002 of the University Grants Commission (for short `the UGC') and the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the subject category for which she had submitted her application form. 2. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 15.05.2009 (Annexure P/2) for appointment and selection for the post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. The last date of submission of the application form was 22.06.2009. The petitioner is having the Masters Degree in Zoology. The petitioner was enrolled on 15.10.2004 for Ph.D. in Hematological and Biochemical toxicity of Arsenic on Mammal by order dated 17.05.2005. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Kumar JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I.A. No. 19. This is an application for clarification/modification of the order dated 09.08.2005, filed by the respondent No. 5. 1. The respondent No. 5-South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Has filed the instant application seeking modification of the order dated 09.08.2005. A learned Division Bench of this Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and also after having taken the affidavits filed by the Union of India, into consideration passed the following order: "The matter will be listed on 13th September, 2005. In the meanwhile, SECL will not break up any fresh area and adhere to all environmental safeguards as indicated in the order dated 13.06.2005 of the Government of India, Ministry of Environmental and Forests, F.C. Division." 2. The instant writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.11.2009 by a learned coordinate Division Bench and thereafter, the same was restored to its fil...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Devki Ganjeer Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Judgement (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. The petitioner filed an application pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.01.2008 (Annexure R-1/1) for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. 2. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess two years D.Ed. course pass certificate. Thus, this petition, seeking a writ to quash the order dated 03.09.2000 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, his candidature was rejected on the above-stated ground. The petitioner, further seeks a direction to direct respondents to appoint her on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. 3. Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the ground that she does not have two years D.Ed. course is unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary, as the advertisement does not prescribes years. The required qualification mentioned in the advertisement is D.Ed...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Raipur Cg Vs. Virendra Kumar Ve ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
ORDER Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 1. The appellant - United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 13-8- 2009 passed by XIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, "the Tribunal"), Durg in Claim Case No.29 of 2009. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents 2 and 3 are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle Metador 407 bearing registration No.C.G./05/ZB/0313. Respondent No.3 was registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 Sanjay Kumar was employed as driver under respondent No.3. At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. On 4-12-2008, claimant/respondent No.1 Virendra Kumar by driving his motorcycle bearing registration CG-07/LG/1446 was coming to village Chicha. On the way, respondent No.2 by driving the vehicle Metador rashly and negligently came from Khairagarh side and dashed against the mo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »