Chhattisgarh Court February 2013 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.
Mrs. Ambika Netam Vs. State Bank of India, Regional Office, Jagdalpur ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Veena Misra, Member 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 05.07.2012, passed in Complaint No.08/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagdalpur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that complainant and her husband D.L.Netam had joint saving account No.0110060145.with OP no.2 Bank. Complainants husband had obtained insurance cover from OP3 under S.B.I. Life Super Suraksha Yojana. Premium for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and 01.2006 to 31.3.2007 was debited from the aforesaid account by OP No.2 and transferred to OP No.3 insurer. After death of her husband Shri D.L.Netam on 29.06.2007, the complainant both orally as well as in writing requested for payment of Rs.2,00,000/towards...
Vipat Singh Vs. Union Govt. of India and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.02.2004 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Dy. Commandant (Plant), Central Industrial Security Force Unit, BSP, Bhilai (for short CISF), whereby, a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for two years without having adverse affect on future increments was imposed, against the petitioner, who was working as Constable (CISF). 2. The facts, in brief, are that when the petitioner was posted as Constable (CISF) in MSDS-II Guard Room, Bhilai Steel Plant, a charge sheet was issued on 13.1.2004 (AnnexureP/7). The first charge was that on 28.11.2003 the petitioner caught hold of one contractors employee namely; Rajendra Prasad, S/o Akshayvar and without information to the higher authorities, seized the gate pass of Rajendra Prasad and left him. Secondly, on 2.12.2003, the petitioner entered into the house of said worker, unauthorizedly, to collect bribe money. On being identified by the members of th...
Mrs. Kumari Bai and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in W.P(S). No.6722/2008) have sought for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners having been regularized along-with those daily wagers who were regularized immediately after notification/Scheme dated 9.1.1990 (Annexure P-1 in W.P(S). No.6722/2008) as Assistant Grade-III. The petitioners in other writ petitions are working on different posts like Forest Guards, Peons, Watchmen, Drivers etc. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the Scheme of Regularization framed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide Government Circular dated 9.1.1990 they were entitled to be regularized immediately after issuance of the Circular, however, when such benefit of regularization was not granted, the Chhattisgarh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Van Karmachari Sangh preferred W.P.No.1781/2003 before this Court along-with other individual writ petitioners who filed separate writ petitions and the said wr...
Jagdeesh Choudhary Vs. Board of Revenue and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to invoke supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17-11-1999 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Case No. 102/A-23/94-95 affirming the order dated 15-9-1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur in Revenue Appeal No.453/A-23/1988-89 and the order dated 18-5-1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Mahasamund in Revenue Case No.158/A-23/1987-88 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for re turn of land to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to notify the transaction under Section 170B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after revision no other remedy is available to the petitioner and the revenue Courts concerned have committed illegality by ignorin...
Suresh Nishad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20-1-2010 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Durg, in Special Case No. 51/2007 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/- under S.366 and R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.500/- under S.376(1), I.P.C., plus default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13-9-2007 a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix namely Gopi (PW-3) alleging that his minor daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 15 years at the relevant time went missing. This report was entered into Rojnamcha Sanha No. 17/2007. On 19-9-2007 prosecutrix returned home and based on her statement FIR Ex.P-13 was registered on 20-9-2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Suhadra Thakur (PW-8) on 20-9-2007 and after completion...
Divisional Railway Manager, Raipur (C.G.) and Another Vs. Vikas Agrawa ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Order (Oral) S.C. Vyas, President, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 08.11.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No.213/2010, whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant against the appellants, has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to pay Rs.5,000/by way of compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. In nut shell, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that on 09.06.2009 respondent / complainant purchased a railway ticket for journey on 10.06.2009 by Amarkantak Express, train No.2814 from Katni to Durg as sleeper class and paid Rs.233/. Later on, it was observed by the respondent/complainant that the said ticket was not confirmed and no berth was allotted to him. He requested to T.T.I to provide a berth and when he refused, then the respondent/complainant approached to Chief Ticket Inspec...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›