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.
Veena Rawte Vs. Jila Shahri Vikas Abhikaran, Through Incharge Officer, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint No.108/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, 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 Mohan Lal Rawte, husband of the appellant/complainant was insured with Life Insurance Corporation of India (respondent No.3/O.P.No.3), through respondent No.2/O.P. No.2 Samudayik Vikas Samiti, Lakholi and became member of "Janshree Beema Yojna". Late Mohan Lal Rawte, the husband of the appellant/complainant deposited amount of premium Rs.25/- on 28.01.2012 before respondent No.2/O.P.No.2. Mohan Lal Rawte, died on 01.03.2012 and the appellant/complainant, is nominee of the deceased Mohan Lal Rawte. Claim was preferred by the appellant/complainant...
M. Ravi Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.38/2010. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. Hence this appeal. 2. In nut shell, the case of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum, was that he was having a saving bank account in the Kusmunda Branch of the respondent Bank. No cheque book facility was provided by the Bank or obtained by the appellant/complainant for operation of that account. Two cheques bearing No.824159 and 821460 of Rs.40,000/- each, were presented for encashment before the respondent Bank from the account of the appellant, which were returned by the respondent Bank with the endorsement that no sufficient amount is available in the Bank account of the appellant/complainant. In view of this endorsement, the payee filed complaint u/s 138...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Siddique Rizwani
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.104/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.03.2012 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as advocate fees and cost of the litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is owner of Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.C.G.04-B-3593 and the said vehicle was in...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: Senior Divisional Man ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint No.35/2012 "„shok Kumar Jain vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited." By the impugned order, learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent /complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.46,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration ...
Ram Khelawan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. The main point in this appeal is,'Whether an act of”causing death, or attempting to cause death, or administering poison”without intention or knowledge that the act may cause such injuries, is an offence or not.' 2. The aforesaid question arises in this criminal appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.1998 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (the ASJ) in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1997 convicting Ram Khelawan (the Appellant) under sections 302, 307 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC). 3. The Appellant was awarded no separate sentence under section 328 IPC, but was awarded life imprisonment under section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 18 years under section 307 IPC. THE FACTS 4. The pedigree of the complainant side is not disputed. It was stated by the prosecution witnesses. It is as follows: Dhanilal Shyama Bai = Ramesh Virendra = Santoshi (PW-7) (PW-8) (PW-1) (Deceased) (PW-3) (Informant) Maya 5...
Kamru and Another Vs. Govardhan and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. By way of the instant review petition, the petitioners have sought for review of the judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.345/02 dated 30.10.13. 2. The petitioners who were the appellants in the said second appeal were the defendants in Civil Suit No. 106-A/94 decided by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur. By way of the said civil suit, a relief for declaration was sought declaring the plaintiffs as successors of late Dhani. 3. The trial court had, after conclusion of the trial, vide its judgment dated 23.12.95, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs declaring them to be the successors of late Dhani. 4. This judgment of Civil Suit No.106-A/94 dated 23.12.95 was subjected to challenge in the First Appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No.21-A/02. 5. The 1st appellate court also vide its judgment and decree dated 17.7.02, after considering the submissions put forth by the appellants therein, dismissed the civil appeal upholding and confirming the judgmen...
National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Vs. Vij ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.262/2013, 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 07.12.2013, passed by the District Forum and has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is belated by 63 days. 3. Shri C.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/O.P. prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the basis of grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant/O.P. and he seeks an opportunity to argue the matter on merits. 4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 5. In Rev...
M/S. Sargam Mobiles, Through: Proprietor âandeuro;andldquo; Anil Gehi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to the opposite party : (a) pay the remaining claim amount Rs.20,52,458/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only); (b) to pay interest @ 12% p/.a. on the aforesaid amount; (c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and (d) to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that : the complainant is running a shop at Shop No.40, Jairam Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) in the name and style of M/s Sargam Mobiles and is engaged in business of selling of mobiles phones of various companies as well as accessories. The mobiles, memory card etc. kept/stored in the shop were insured with the O.P./Insurance Company under Policy No.450301/11/10/11/00000054 for security against fire and other natural calamities and Po...
NitIn Sinha Vs. Union of India Through: Its Secretary, Ministry of Per ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Petitioner- Nitin Sinha is a Bardana (gunny bag) Trader. He has filed this petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the contractual appointment of 6th respondent on the post of Principal Secretary, Information Technology and Bio Technology (I.T. and B.T.) and giving him additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minister and Principal Secretary, Public Relation. (2) The 6th respondent was a member of Indian Revenue Services (Custom and Central Excise). He resigned from the said post and thereafter was appointed on the post of Secretary, I.T. and B.T. Government of Chhattisgarh on 27.1.2010 on contractual basis for a period of 3 years. The conditions of contractual appointment were notified vide order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure-P/1). The instant PIL was filed on 22.8.2012 challenging the validity of the said order. (3) Later on, during the pendency of the writ petition...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Itarsi Oil and Flour Mills, Ra ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. The main point involved in this reference at the instance of the Income Tax Department (the Department) under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), relating to M/s Itarsi Oil and Flour Mills, Raipur (the Assessee) for the assessment year (the AY) 1993-94”revolves around interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC {80HHC(3)}of the Act. The question is, 'Whether the word 'business' used in Section 80HHC(3) of the Act means all businesses of an assessee or only that business, which is partly or fully doing export business.' THE FACTS 2. The Assessee has two separate units, one is solvent extraction plant and the other is flour mill. The solvent extraction plant (the SE-Unit) is doing export business as well as domestic business; whereas, the flour mill (the F-Unit) is totally doing domestic business only. 3. Section 80HHC of the Act provides some relief to the assesses carrying on export business and allows deductions as mentioned therein. The Assessee is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »