Chhattisgarh Court May 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.
M/S. Nakoda Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Dhandha Pani Finance ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.167/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) holding that the transaction between the parties, is commercial transaction, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not a consumer and there is an agreement between the parties. There is a provision for the arbitration proceedings in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to hear the present matter. 2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are that : that loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- for purchase of the machine was obtained by the appellant (complainant) from the respondent (O.P.) and immovable property of the appellant (complainant), which is mentioned in the Schedule was mortgaged. The l...
Prabhudayal Kesharwani Vs. the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Boar ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-08-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the appellant (complainant) is directed against the order dated 31.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.414/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) Prabhudayal Kesharwani and Pramesh Kesharwani have separately applied and purchase house under Hire Purchase Scheme and requested to variation in the price, which is still in existence. In the pamphlet which was issued by the Chief Minister, Housing Minister and President, it is mentioned the houses will be made available by the Housing Board to the beneficial according to their convenience in 5-10-15 or 20 years easy installment. The price of the each house under Self Finance Scheme would be Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs...
Bhartiya Jeevan Beema Nigam and Another Vs. Geetanjali Goswami
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-08-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2013, passed by the District onsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.146/2012. By the impugned order the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay the amount of Rs.78,000/- and Rs.91,000/- as benefit under both the policies and to pay a sum of rs.96,663/- as amount of death claim within two months from the date of order, otherwise the aforesaid amount will be payable along with interest @ 18% p.a. The District Forum, has further directed the appellants (OPs) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : that Shri Govardhan Puri Goswami, who was father in law of the respondent (complainant) purchased insurance policies of rs.96,663/-...
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Through Its Chairman-cum- Managing Di ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-08-2014
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The short question involved in this appeal is: œWhether the Circular dated 02.09.2002 was applicable to the employees/members of the Petitioner- Sangh, who had opted for voluntary retirement (VR) under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 07.03.2001 and got their cases already finalized prior to 12.06.2002?? 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: 2.1. The employees/members of the Petitioner- Sangh were Wage Board employees. They were getting their pay as per Wage Board Scale. Cement Wage Board Settlement dated 14.08.2002, was applicable to them. They made applications for voluntary retirement as per œCCI Voluntary Retirement Scheme? dated 07.03.2001. This Scheme was prevailing at the relevant time, as the earlier Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 1992, was withdrawn with effect from 03.03.2001. 2.2. The Voluntary Retirement (VR) applications filed by the employees/members of the Petitioner- Sangh, were accepted by the appellants/respond...
T. Tejasvani and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Ch ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-07-2014
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 23rd of April, 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49/2008 by the Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in following manner, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:- ConvictionSentenceu/S 450 IPCR.I. for 5 years and fine ofRs.3000/- with defaultsentence of R.I. for 1 yearu/S 394 r/w 397 IPCR.I. for 7 years and fine ofRs.3000/- with defaultsentence of R.I. for 1 yearu/S 302 IPCLife imprisonment andfine of Rs.5,000/- withdefault sentence of R.I.for 1 year (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1 Keshav Prasad Gupta (PW-1) was a Sub-Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Korba. He was residing with his family in Qr. No. G/25, SADA Colony, Niharika, Korba. Deceased- Sadhana Gupta was wife of Keshav Prasad (PW-1). Rohit Gupta (PW-2) is son of Keshav Prasad (PW-1). On 17.1.2008, Keshav Prasad (PW-1), as usual, left ...
Rani Mahalka Nisha Khan Vs. Abdul Javed Khan
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. By way of the instant revision, the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 3.3.12 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MJC No.478/2011 whereby the court below had rejected the claim application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Facts leading to the instant case are that the applicant and the non-applicant belong to the Muslim community by religion and were married on 2.6.02. It is contended that as on 7.12.10, the non-applicant i.e. had given Talak-ul-bain (divorce) to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and the matter was registered as MJC No.478/2011 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur ultimately vide judgment dated 3.3.12, rejected the claim application of the applicant on the ground that the proceedings for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C are not maintainable on account of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Pr...
M/S. Hotel East Park and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. The main point involved in this writ petition relates to the validity of section 66E(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 [Statutory Provisions Relating to Service Tax] (the 1994-Act). THE FACTS 2. M/s. Hotel East Park (the Petitioner) is a well known hotel of Bilaspur. It has normal facilities provided in a hotel including an air-conditioned, restaurant and a bar. They cater not only to the persons staying in the hotel but to the outsiders as well. 3. The Central Excise Department (the Department) charges service tax of 40% on the bill value of the food and drinks. This is done in view of section 66E(i) of the 1994-Act read with rule 2C of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (the Rules). 4. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of section 66E(i) of 1994-Act. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination in the case: (i) Whether any service tax can be charged on a sale of an item or...
Dr. K.M. Sharma and Others Vs. M.K. Raut and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. By way of the instant contempt petition the applicants have prayed for initiating the contempt proceeding against the respondents for alleged willful non-compliance of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in W. P. (S) 6670/2007. 2. Counsel for the applicants submits that the State Govt. has not implemented the said order passed by this Hon'ble Court by which the State Govt. was directed to examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (for short œthe Rules 1998?). 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submit that the State Govt. has already complied with the order dated 23.01.2013 and after examining the case of the applicants vide its order dated 27.12.2013 issued an order holding that the case of the applicants has been considered and they were found to be paid properly. It was also ordered that the applicants would not be entitled for the regular pay-scale a...
Anil Shrivas Vs. Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-03-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir “ Champa (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.22/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the Xylo car bearing registration No.P.B. 29-B-2021 and the vehicle was insured with the respondents (O.P.). On 25.08.2011, the health of the house owner of the appellant (complainant) was not well, therefore, he had taken the vehicle to Apollo Hospital, and while returning from the Hospital, near Samrat Dhaba, the vehicle met with accident resulting which mudguard, bonnet and front part of the vehicle was damaged. The intimation regarding the incident was given by the driver of the vehicle to Police Station, ...
Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insuranc ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-01-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.126/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) purchased a vehicle Tata (Ace) with the help of finance provided by the respondents (OPs). The appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the respondents (OPs) under Insurance Policy No.3379/00490099/000/00 for the period from 26.10.2010 to 25.10.2011. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.2,90,000/-. On 15.12.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident o and extensively damaged. The matter was reported at Police Station, Balrampur on 16.12.2010 at about 16.10 P.M. by driver D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »