Chhattisgarh Court August 2012 Judgments
Sunil Bajaj Vs. Triyambak Sharma and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Order MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 1. The owner of the vehicle Tavera Car bearing registration No. CG-04/H-7211 (the appellant herein) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the dismissal of the claim petition by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.49/2008 vide order dated 24/10.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2007 when the appellant was going to Sundarnagar from Lakhenagar by his vehicle Tavera Car bearing registration No.CG-04/H- 7211 which was insured with Insurance Company, at the same time the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle Santro Car bearing registration No.CG-04/H-3972 dashed his vehicle from back side near Ashwani Nagar in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which his vehicle got damaged. The matter was reported to the police station Azad Chowk and challan was presented before the Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mithlesh Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment order dated 08th April, 2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No. 5 and further, to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of ECG Technician in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur (for short `the CIMS') without specifying asto whether the petitioner seeks appointment in Medical College or in the Hospital as both the appointments were governed separately. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Dean, CIMS issued an advertisement on 09th September, 2008 inviting applications for several posts including 01 post of ECG technician under the unreserved category for appointment in the Medical College. Clause 3 of the selection process, inter alia, provided that the candidates having experience in the Medical College would be granted one mark for each year, upto maximum, five marks. One day before t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute Rajnandgaon Vs. V K ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC) (Review petition under Rules 87 and 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, who was the respondent No. 4 and 5 in writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 6100 of 2011 (V.K. Sinha v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others) (for short "the respondent college"), has preferred the review petition No. 03 of 2012 on three grounds viz; firstly; the respondent herein (for short "the writ petitioner") had stated wrong facts that his daughter was admitted in another college, whereras, the daughter of the writ petitioner is still pursuing her studies in the respondent college. Secondly; application for grant of migration certificate has to be approved by the Dental Council of India (for short "the D.C.I.") as well as other authorities, if an application is filed within a period of one month of passing the first professional Bachelo...
Tag this Judgment!Abhijit Kant Chaudhury Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to quash the order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed on his representation and further to consider his claim for promotion on the post of Assistant House Manager with all consequential benefits of service w.e.f. 05.03.2010. 2. The indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was first appointed on 02.07.2004 (Annexure P-4) on the post of Catering Manager in Raj Bhawan, Chhattisgarh, after due selection. His service was confirmed vide order dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) w.e.f. 31.05.2007. One name provisional seniority list was also published on 01.04.2010, showing him as regular Catering Manager. The petitioner claims promotion to the post of Assistant House Manager on the ground that he had spent sufficient time on the post of Catering Manager, thus, he may be considered for promotion t...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure P-3), whereunder, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Teacher on revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-18,000/- was canceled without affording proper opportunity of hearing. 2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, he was posted in Government Middle School Bendra Navagaon on 22.08.2008, as is evident from the application (Annexure P-2) for joining new place of posting. Promotion of the petitioner was canceled subsequently by order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) observing that the petitioner did not come within the zone of seniority and, as such, his promotion order was canceled. It is further submitted that other teachers, who are junior to the petitioner, namely Yashwant Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Dukalu Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.5/ S.D.O. (Revenue), Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, allowing the election dispute raised by respondent No.2 and setting aside his election. 2. While deciding the dispute, the SDO (Revenue) has exercised the powers u/s 64(2)(V) read with section 66 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act, 1960). Under Section 66 of Act, 1960, Registrar has power to decide the dispute u/s 64 himself or transfer it for disposal to a nominee or Board of nominees to be appointed by him and such decision of a nominee shall for the purpose of the Act, be deemed to be the decision of the Registrar. U/s 3 of the Act, the Registrar is appointed by the State Government and similarly, other officers are also appointed to assist him. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 says that the officers appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Chhote Lal Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29.05.2008 (Annexure-P/2) on the ground that the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner during his service period has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner working as Assistant Engineer, retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2008. Thereafter, without assigning any reason and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order 29.05.2008 (Annexure-P/2) was passed holding that excess payment has been made to the petitioner during the service period and the said amount has to be deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the alleged excess payment has been made to the petitioner while the petitioner was in service, however, the impugned recovery order has been passed only after ret...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Now State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Motur ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
ORDER WRIT APPEALS UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (1) Heard. (2) The decision rendered in W.A. No.342 of 2011 shall also govern the disposal of other appeals being W.A. Nos. 343 of 2011, 344 of 2011, 345 of 2011 and 358 of 2011, because, all these appeals involve identical issues and secondly arise out of common order passed by the writ Court ( Single Judge ). (3) This is an appeal filed by the respondents of W.P.(S) No. 974 of 2005 under Section 2 (1) f the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the common order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition and other connected writ petitions. (4) By the impugned order, the writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein (employees) and in consequence, set aside the dismissal order of the writ petitioners (respo...
Tag this Judgment!Rungta College of Engineering and Technology Bhilai and Others Vs. Sta ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of Rule 2.4 of the Chhattisgarh Engineering Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2012 (for short "the Pravesh Niyam, 2012"), notified on 03.04.2012 (Annexure P-12), whereunder, the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Quota, Other State Quota and Management Quota have been abolished and it was observed that 50% seats in minority institutes shall be filled from minorities and the remaining seats shall be filled up on the basis of merit. 10% seats shall be filed up from AIEEE, 2012 Quota, on the basis of Central Allocation. Remaining seats shall be filled up in private and unaided institutions on the basis of merit. The petitioners - Rungta College of Engineering and Technology, Bhilai and Others (for short "the petitioner Institutes") also seek a direction to the respondents to maintain the prevailing system of management quota in the private unaided prof...
Tag this Judgment!Hirdan Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure - P/1 page 12 of the petition), passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Badkabahra, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District Koria, whereby, the petitioner, working as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary), has been removed from service on the basis of resolution dated 17.01.2008 passed in the Gram Sabha. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure - P/1 page 13 of the petition), whereby the respondent No.6 has been appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) in place of the petitioner, by the Gram Panchayat, Badkabahra, after approval of the Gram Sabha. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by passing a resolution on 19.11.1995 by the Gram Panchayat. Later on, by order dated 30.10.1999, the petitioner was declared as Panchayat Secretary. On a complain...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »