Chhattisgarh Court September 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.
Bhuneshwar JaIn Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
ORDER APPLICATION UNDER PROVISOIN OF SUB-RULE 2 OF RULE 90 UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2012 PASED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPS No. 3114/2012 (BHUNESHWAR JAIN V. STATE OF C.G. and OTHERS). (BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 13.08.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3114 of 2012 (Bhuneshwar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), by this Court, wherein the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order on the ground that the intention of the petitioner was to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, however, due to mistake, in the order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that he wants to m...
Dwarika Ram and Others Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
ORDER (BY CIRCULATION, IN CHAMBER) REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 OF C.P.C. 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the Chamber under provisions of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seeks review of the order dated 11.04.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3351 of 2010 (Dwarika Ram and others v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others) on the grounds that firstly, the name of the petitioners are registered with the Employment Exchange Office, even then their names were not sponsored for selection and appointment. Secondly, there was no need to implead selected candidates as party respondents as the controversy of appointment on 42 posts of peon was well within the knowledge of the selected candidates as it was mentioned in the order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure R-P/3) that it was subject to outcome of W.P.(S) No. 3351/2010 and lastly, the respondents have not disclosed the reasons asto why the 42 posts ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›