Chhattisgarh Court January 2014 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.
Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Limited and Another Vs. ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of appeal No. FA/12/766 as well as Appeal No. FA/12/773, which have been preferred respectively by O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.4 of the Complaint Case No.05/2011, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) vide order dated 23.11.2012, directing thereby to both the appellants/(O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4) to pay the complainants cost of 230.40 Quintals of paddy as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh for procurement of the aforesaid crop, within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 6% p.a., with further direction that in case of failure of payment of aforesaid amount, the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. It has also been directed that the aforesaid amount would first be payable by O.P.No.4 of the complaint case and in case of its failure, the aforesaid amount will be payable by O.P.No.1. Litigation cost, Rs.2,000/- has been quantified and the appellants./ (O.P.No.1 ...
Mst. Chandra Vs. Hari Singh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
1. Heard on I.A. No.07 which is a repeat application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2, 3 (a) and 5 and I.A No.08, application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application u/o 22 r 4 of CPC. 2. Notices on these applications were directed to be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5. On receipt of notice, counsel for the proposed respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5 entered appearance before this Court in respect of the sustaining of I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 and vehemently opposed the said I.As. and stressed hard for their rejection. 3. Before deciding the two I.As. it is necessary to narrate the facts leading to the second appeal and subsequent filing of the I.As. in nutshell. 4. By way of the instant second appeal the appellants who were the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court have challenged the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1998 passed ...
Padam Nanda and Another Vs. Lakhma Kawasi and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) These 2 Election Petitions challenge the election of first respondent from Constituency No. 90 i.e. Konta, in Assembly Elections 2008 on identical grounds, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Facts: (2) The first respondent and 3 other candidates contested Assembly Elections, 2008 of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.90 i.e. Konta Constituency. Polling took place on 14.11.2008 and the result was declared on 8.12.2008. The first respondent was elected by a margin of 192 votes. He was a candidate of Indian National Congress. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 03/2009 was an electorate and his name finds place in voter list of Konta Constituency, whereas, the petitioner in Election Petition No. 09/2009 was a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party. He polled 21438 votes and the first respondent polled 21630 votes. (3) The petitioners have taken the grounds that many voters of Constituency No.90, who were residing...
Navkar Marketing (i.) Pvt. Ltd, and Another Vs. Harnaam Kaur and Anoth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of Appeal No FA/13/226 as well as Appeal No. FA/13/245, which have been preferred respectively by the O.P. / Navkar Marketing (I.) Pvt. Ltd., and complainant (Smt. Harnaam Kaur) of Complaint Case No.1077/2011 against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant, has been allowed in part OPs have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, interest, unfair trade practice and mental agony and also Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate fees and cost of litigation, within one month from the date of order. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/13/226 and its copy be placed in the ...
Navneet Jha Vs. Branch Manager, Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Branch ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.07.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham / Kawardha (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.04/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the O.P./respondent as cost of litigation and advocate fees from the complainant/appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are as under:- 3. That the complainant/appellant is owner of a vehicle Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX bearing registration No. C.G.04-J.A.-3730. The complainant/appellant purchased the said vehicle with the help of financial assistance by obtaining loan from the O.P./respondent to the tune of Rs.11,25,000/- and the instalments of the loan were to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments. The agreement was effective from 20.07.2007 to 20.02.20...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs. Santosh Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.32/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the O.P./appellant (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within period of two months from the date of order, otherwise the amount would be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case of the complainant/respondent before the District Forum are : that the complainant/respondent is owner of vehicle Bolaro bearing registration No.C.G.09-5277 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P./appellant. The insurance of the vehicle was effectiv...
Tekam Alias Tekram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342/96, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to 7 years R.I. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father and brothers at village Nandni Khundni. Her mother had left and married somewhere and the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers namely Nand Kumar, Ishwari and Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Ishwari, one boy named Tikendra, the accused, was also studying. Because of the friendship, the said boy used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused Tikendra used to visit there and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that at about one year before the inciden...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushal Kumar
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2012, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.42/2011, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown ...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Processing Incharge (Manager)
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.13/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed, as not proved. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant is resident of Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari and is agriculturist by profession. His father Shri Raghunandan Prasad Sharma, is having one acre land, his son Navin Sharma (minor) is having 2.37 hectare land, his mother Smt. Kumari Bai Sharma is having 0.41 hectare land and his nephew Ravi Sharma (minor) is also having 0.41 hectare land at village Siraudkala, Patwari Halka No.65/2, Revenue Circle Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District - Dhamtari. The complainant looks after all agricultural lands of his father, mother, minor son and his nephew. On 14.06.2010, the complainant went to office of the O.P. fo...
Surendra Kumar JaIn Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.131/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »