Chhattisgarh Court March 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.
Vandana Global Limited Vs. M/S. Jaypee Engg. and Hydraulics Equipment ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties (a) to take back the defected goods and return the amount paid for the purchase of the defective product i.e. Rs.25,90,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs and Ninety Thousand Only); (b) to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the above amount from the date of occurrence of defect in product; (c) to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) towards mental and physical agony and financial loss; (d) Saddle the cost of litigation expenses, lawyers fees on the opposite parties for instituting the instant complaint and approaching before this Commission and (e) to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that : the complainant is a limited company having its registered off...
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Kawardha Vs. Anantram Gupt ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.09/2012 whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 15.02.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/O.P. on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 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, how...
Sanjay Bharti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn and challenge the legality and propriety of the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner is also challenging the appellate order dated 05.07.2011 (Annexure P/4). 2. Brief facts, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties are as under: i. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in the post of Constable (G.D.) on 07.10.2008 on probation. Thereafter, the petitioner during his probation period was sent for police training school, Jagdalpur and he reported on 20.11.2010. The petitioner was absent from his duty from 30.09.2009 upto 19.11.2009 without any information or permission unauthorisedly and returned on 19.11.2009 ii. The petitioner was given duty in the residence of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur on 30.10.2010 but the petitioner while on duty was found to be intoxicated with alcohol upon which a medical examination was conducted and a preliminary enquiry was done by...
Dr. I. D. Kalwani Vs. T.N. Dubey and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties, for seeking a direction for providing Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) taken for service charges and Rs.25,75,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) taken towards court fees and to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs and Fifty One thousand only) towards compensation for maintenance of his life, and Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to disgrace the complainant in the Society and also seeking interest 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.25,75,000/- and Rs.35,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that : the complainant is a doctor by profession as well as he is a partner in the partnership firm M/s Shivam Builders and Developers (P.) Ltd. The Opposite Parties are husband and wife and are Advocates by profession. In the month of September, 2008, all of a sudden, the ...
Narendra Singh Rajput Vs. Jagendra Kumar and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.39/2010. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the appellant / complainant and directed the appellant/complainant to pay the remaining amount to the respondent no.1 for the extra work done in addition to the agreement executed between the parties, within a month and the respondent no.1 will also complete the remaining construction work within two month and will receive the last installment after receiving the amount for the extra work done by him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are that : an agreement was executed between the appellant/complainant and respondents/OPs for construction of the house of the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant averred ...
Satyawan Punia Vs. Manager, Tata Motor Finance and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Execution Case No.07/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/complainant that there is no need to provide further opportunity to the appellant/complainant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are : that the appellant/complainant had purchased a Truck bearing registration No.HR-46/D-6441 after obtaining finance from Tata Finance Limited. As the appellant/complainant failed to pay certain instalments, the vehicle was repossessed by the financer from Village Patrapali (Jindal), Raigarh when it was parked at the premises of OP-3 Anand Motors, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh. Thereafter financer issued notice to the complainant dated 19.4.2005 for paying sum of Rs.74,865/-. The complainant deposited Rs.98,000/- on 7.7.200...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.CC/63/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.91,713.04 to the respondent / complainant within a month, otherwise the aforesaid amount, would be payable along with interest @ 10% p.a. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the complaint of the respondent/ complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant has purchased a medical policy No.193300/48/2011/843 for Rs.2,00,000/- for the period from 08.09.2010 to 07.09.2011 from the appellant/O.P./ Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 10.02.2011 ...
For the Appellant: Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. for the Respondents: R1, R ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.11.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.31/2010. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1 / complainant and directed the appellant/O.P.No.1/Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.9,28,034/- to the respondent No.1/complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment, within a period of one month. The respondent No.2 has been directed to deduct the amount of premium from Rs.1,58,977/-, which is deposited in account No.304/08 and respondent no.2 will pay the remaining amount to appellant/O.P.No.1 after deducting the amount which was given earlier as member of the scheme along with interest @ 9% p.a. The District Form has further directed that as the directions given in the order dated 21.05.009 passed in Complaint Case No.12/2...
Banshilal Banjara Nayak Vs. Union of India, Through : General Manager, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 06.09.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.308/2009, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for seeking compensation from the respondent/O.P. was found not maintainable and has been dismissed on the ground that the same was not filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. 2. The facts of the case were that the son of the complainant namely Divya Bhushan, aged 22 years died in a rail accident on 08.10.2000 while he was crossing a railway track as there was no foot over bridge facility. On account of his death as bonafide passenger of the railway, who was having railway ticket, complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum for seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/O.P. 3. The prayer was opposed by the respondent on the ground that complaint is barre...
Shruti Deshpande and Another Vs. Shriram Deshpande and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
T.P. Sharma, J. 1. F.A. (M) Nos.80/12 and 81/12 filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on behalf of the both the parties against the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.14-A/2011 are being disposed of by this common order. By the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.5.2012 the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur has decreed the suit filed by respondent-Sriram Deshpande for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- lump sum permanent alimony to the wife i.e. Smt. Shruti Deshpande. 2. By filing F.A. (M) No.80/12 the appellant wife has challenged the legality and propriety of the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and quantum of permanent alimony, inter alia by filing F.A. (M) No.81/12 the husband-Sriram Deshpande has challenged the quantum of permanent alimony. 3. As per plaint allegations, the respondent was married to the appellant on 23.1.2007. The appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »