Chhattisgarh Court December 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.
Saroj Bai Vs. Respondents Ramdas Lahre and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.4.12 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Appeal No.7-A/2011 whereby the 1st appellate court has confirmed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Mungeli in Civil Suit No.53-A/2006. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant Second Appeal are that plaintiffs had instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction in the mandatory form seeking removal of the encroachment which is alleged to have been created by the defendant in the suit property bearing Khasra No.462/1 measuring 8.17 acres at village Dharampura of which, it is alleged that the defendants, had encroached upon some portion of the said land and made certain construction in the said suit land as an encroachment and therefore, had sought for the removal of same. It is a case where during the course of the proceedings before the trial court, vide its orde...
Awadh Tripathi and Others Vs. The Bar Council of Chhattisgarh and Othe ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
1) This order shall govern disposal of both the writ petitions i.e. WP(C) Nos. 1981 and 2212 of 2014, as both the petitions arise out of and raise common issues with regard to the election of the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (for short 'the SBC') to elect 25 members. Both the writ petitions were analogously heard on admission, intervention and vacating stay. 2) In WP (C) No.1981 of 2014 (for brevity 1st petition) the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to register First Information Report (for short 'FIR') and submit a preliminary enquiry report before this Court; for directing the election process of the SBC to some other agency from the stage where the allegations have been leveled and to handover all the records to an independent agency for further action from the stage of second round of counting (counting of the second preference vote) and for further direction to the respondent No.1 i.e. The Bar Council of Chhattisgarh through officiating...
M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anoth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
1. The pivotal question that falls to be determined in this writ petition is whether the petitioner company being lessee of Biomass Power Plant is not liable to pay the electricity duty under Section 3 of Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as ED Act,1949)on consumption of electrical energy on the ground that lesser company (MUUL) is exempted from payment of electricity duty by the State of Chhattisgarh/respondent herein in exercise of power conferred under Section 3B of the ED Act, 1949? 2. The core facts, in nutshell, required for judging legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P/4) as well as demand notice dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P/6) are stated as under: 2.1 M/s Maa Usha Urja Limited (for short, MUUL) i.e. a company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 situated at village Girodh, Dharsiwan, District Raipur, installed Power Plant of 7.5 MW for producing power from nonconventional sources like Biom...
Balmukund Dubey and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
(1) Apprehending arrest for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 452, 392/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth IPC) in connection with Crime No. 185/2013 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, present applicants filed their application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), which was eventually transferred to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. (2) During pendency of the application, learned Public Prosecutor relying upon the newly amended provisions brought into statute book in shape of sub-Section (1-B) of Section 438 of the Code, filed an application stating that presence of the petitioners is necessary at the time of final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail, therefore, the personal presence of the applicant be directed in the interest of justice. The said application was opposed by the present petitioners. (3) Learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›