Chhattisgarh Court April 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.
Tilak Ram Mandavi and Others Vs. State of Cg and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
1. This two groups of writ petitions challenge different provisions of Chhattisgarh Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department Educational Cadre (Gazetted), Service Recruitment Rules, 2011 (the 2011- Rules) and are opposite to each other in the sense that if one is to be allowed the other is to be dismissed: The first group namely WP(S)- 1407, and 2241 of 2012 (serial-1 and 2) is by directly recruited Lecturers and they substantially challenged the equivalence granted to Headmasters, Middle School with the Lecturers; The second group of writ petitions namely WP(S)- 2349, 2674, 2675, 2676, 3150 of 2012 and WP(S)- 1449 of 2013 (serial-3 to 8) is by Lecturers, who are promoted from the post of Head Masters, Middle School for not including the period of their service as Head Master, Middle School for calculating the period of their qualifying service as has been in the case of those Head Masters middle school who continue to hold such post. THE FACTS Historical• The Earlier R...
Srei. Equipment Finance Private Limited, Through : Manager Vs. Ibrahim ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.09.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.20/2013. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- within two months from the date of order to the respondent (complainant), along with interest 7% p.a. from 09.04.2012 till date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance and security of the Hydra crane from filing of the complaint i.e. 11.02.2013 and the said amount, is payable by the appellant (O.P.) till giving delivery of the crane. The respondent (complainant) will return the crane within 2 months and will receive the amount from the appellant (O.P.) The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent (complainant), as...
The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Limited and Anothe ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.128/2011. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant and directed the appellants/OPs/Insurance Company to pay within two months from the date of order a insurance benefit amount Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.08.2011. The appellants/OPs have been further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum case are : that the respondent / complainant had purchased an insurance policy no.452000/48/10/34/00000271 for his shop Manoj Cycle Stores for the period from 19.05....
Usha Shukla Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 05.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur Koria (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.11/2013. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, has been partly allowed and the respondents/OPs have been directed to jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs.9,762/-, which is proposal deposit amount, along with interest @ 9% from 27.08.2011 and respondents/OPs have been further directed to deposit the aforesaid amount with the District Forum within 45 days from the date of order for making payment to the appellant/complainant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/complainant filed this appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the husband of the appellant/complainant namely Late Ramendra Kumar Shukla, purchased an insurance policy on 27.0...
iffco âandeuro;andldquo; Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cha ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 07.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.109/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,691/- (Rs. One Lakh Forty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety One only) to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent /complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant purchased a tractor bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-9576 on 30.04.2011 with the help of financier Mahindra Finance. The said vehicle was insured by the...
Dr. Vinay Gupta Vs. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. and A ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in unregistered Complaint Case. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) is a doctor by profession and his ancestral land is situated at Dhangaon, Post Nirjam Block, District Mungeli. The agricultural land was cultivated by the brother of the appellant (complainant) namely Vikas Gupta on behalf of the appellant (complainant). The respondents (OPs) registered the land of the appellant (complainant) for agriculture seed production for which service charge was paid by the appellant (complainant). It was the responsibility of the respondents (OPs) to provide technical services and to ins...
Alok Narayan Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.180/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for calling report from the concerning engineer regarding the actual cost of the house. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are that : the an agreement was executed between the parties for construction of house of the respondent (complainant) on the land situated at Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). According to the agreement executed between the parties, the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was required to construct the house of the respondent (complainant) at 1100 sq. ft. of land including material and labour charges and additional work was also included in the agreement. A s...
Brijnandan Chandra Vs. Branch Manager, JaIn Tractor, Janjgir Champa Ro ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in CC No.2012/12 "Brijnandgan Chandra Vs. Branch Manager, Jain Tractors". By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant before the District Forum are: that the appellant/complainant purchased Mahindra Bhumi Putra Tractor from the respondent/O.P. and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as margin money on 25.06.2011. When after purchasing the tractor, the appellant/complainant plied the tractor for 2-3 hours, then the engine of the tractor became heated. The appellant/complainant contacted the respondent/O.P. and made complaint regarding the above defect in the tractor, then the respondent/O.P. sent his mechanic for removing the defects. On being given...
Mohammad Momid Khan Vs. Magma Leasing Limited, Through: Managing Direc ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.12.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.186/2009. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant holding that the appellant/complainant does not come in the category of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant /complainant before the District Forum are : that the appellant/complainant purchased a second hand JCB vehicle bearing registration No.W.B.26-C-4225 at the price of Rs.4,00,000/- with the help of respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 and the installments of the loan were being deposited by him with the respondent No.2/O.P.No.2, who is branch office of the respondent No.1/O.P.No.1. The appellant/complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.4,58,850/- against the amount of loan,...
Tata Motors Limited Vs. Vashishta Tiwari and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.107/2010 whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant), has been allowed. 2. The appellant (O.P. No.3) has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.01.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed an 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 suffici...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »