Chhattisgarh Court January 2015 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 Hariom Enterprises, Grain Merchants and Commission Agent Vs. Ved K ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
1. Present is a defendant/tenant's appeal whereby the tenant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2005 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.1A of 2005 wherein the first appellate Court has affirmed and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class I, Raipur in favour of the landlord/plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 67A of 2004. 2. The instant second appeal was admitted for consideration of only one substantial question of law i.e. Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that the suit filed by coowner is maintainable in the present case? 3. For proper adjudication of the said substantial question of law it would be relevant to give a brief factual matrix of the case. The plaintiff namely Khushal Chand had filed a civil suit before the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur seeking for eviction of the defendant/tenant i.e. the present appellant from the suit premises under Section 12 (1) (...
Mohan Products Pvt. Ltd and Others Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
1. The borrower has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the respondentState Bank of India (for short 'the Bank') of publishing photographs of the petitioners in the newspapers declaring them as defaulter is illegal and without any authority of law; to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Bank from publishing such photographs and from adopting extra legal means of publishing photographs to recover the dues from the petitioners. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a company whereas the petitioners No.2 and 3 are its Directors. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS CTD Bar, Round, Angle, Channel, Flat, Square, etc. In order to fulfill its working capital, it applied for and was sanctioned cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.275 lacs and SME credit plus to the tune of Rs.25 lacs in December, 2008. A residential house originally mortgaged in another loan account of M/s Mohan Marketi...
Yadram (Dead) Through LRs. and Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
T.P. Sharma, J. 1. This reference has been made by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) under Rule 32 (2) (ii) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Vide order dated 3-9-2014, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has directed to place the reference before this Bench to answer the following referred question of law: - "Whether the provision of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 inserted vide M.P. Amendment Act No.15 of 1980 with effect from 24-12-1980, are applicable in respect of transactions prior to commencement of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, involving transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land which, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to a member of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub section (6) of Section 165 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959? 2. Scope of application of the provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land ...
Lov Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
(1) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant herein has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 27/2010 registered at police station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth PC Act). (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant has amassed wealth of Rs. 2,91,56,508/- disproportionate to his known source of income while working as Assistant Excise Officer and thereby he has committed the aforesaid offence. (3) Appearing for the applicant, Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel would submit that the applicant has not amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income as his statement has been recorded before the Investigating Officer on 16.12.2011 and he has sought information with regard to check period, which has been replied by Anti C...
Ayesha Bano and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court, the petitioners three in numbers namely; Ayesha Bano, Zubair Hussain and Dheeraj Sao have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 25.05.2014 by which the Sessions Judge has declined to interfere with the order passed by trial magistrate granting application under first proviso to subSection (2) of Section Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (henceforth the Act, 1967). 2. The petitioners are facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 3, 13,17 and 40 of the Act, 1967, and also under Sections 420,467,471 and 120B of the IPC in connection with Crime No.567/2013 registered at Police Station KhamtaraiRaipur, District Raipur. 3. The jurisdictional police could not complete the investigation of aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein within the stipulated time of 90 days and, therefore, an application was ...
Rais Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of habeas corpus and for quashing the impugned orders dated 11/03/2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg and dated 18/09/2014 passed by the State has been preferred by the detenu (through his brother) who has been directed to be detained for a period of 12 months from 11/03/2014 i.e. the date of order passed by the District Magistrate. (2) The Superintendent of Police, Durg submitted a report before the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has done such pre-determined and well designed acts which has infuriated communal passion resulting in serious damage to communal harmony inasmuch as the petitioner has made objectionable comments concerning the deities of a particular religion in his facebook page. The Superintendent of Police reported that such act of the petitioner had the design and there is fear of communal riots. Because of the...
Zakir Malik Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
1. The short, but important question falls for determination in this petition is whether learned trial magistrate is justified in straightway issuing nonbailable warrant for securing the presence of the petitioner/accused after granting application under Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. without making an attempt to secure his presence first either by issuing summon or bailable warrant? 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Maudahapara, Raipur, on 06.11.2013 filed chargesheet against Farman Malik for commission of offence under Section 420/34 and 354A of the IPC. In said case, charges were framed against the said accused person on 02.01.2014 and thereafter on 18.02.2014 the complainant Yamini Baghel was examined and simultaneously the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for arraigning the present petitioner as coaccused in said criminal case. On 05.03.2014, after considering the said application, the trial court allowed the same and directed issu...
A.S. Ali and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Oral Order: 1. The three petitioners working as teachers in Shakuntala Vidyalaya, Ram Nagar, Bhilai, have assailed the legality and validity of the criminal proceeding pending against them in Criminal Case No.903/2013 for offence under Section 304-A of the IPC pending before the CJM, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund. They have also prayed for quashment of the charge-sheet (Annexure-P/1). 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 16.12.2012 (Sunday) 328 students of the said school were sent by the school management for educational excursion trip to Sirpur, District Mahasamund, a place of historical importance, adjoining river Mahanadi. The students were accompanied with 17 teachers. In course of enjoyment during the said excursion trip, the students went to bathe on the bank of Mahanadi river behind Gandheshwar Nath temple. Since the ill-fated day being a Sunday, there was rush of other visitors/tourists. In course of the said bathing, 3 students namely, Ankit Kishore, Mayank Cha...
Pankaj Samundre Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.324/2014, registered in Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act,1915 (for short, the Act, 1915), the applicant herein has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and coaccused Suraj were found carrying 17.28 Bulk liters of country made liquor in the motorcycle on 01.09.2014 without authority of law which was seized from the coaccused Suraj. 3. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that no ingredients of Section 34(1)(a) of the Act, 1915, is available against the applicant in the first information report/complaint as he has falsely been implicated in the case, and therefore, bar of anticipatory bail as provided under Section 59A (i) of the Act, 1915, is not attracted and he i...
Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs. Sushila Bai and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Order: 1. These three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioner who has filed three separate civil suits for eviction of the respondents. In all the suits, the trial Court has rejected the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), which was preferred by him seeking permission to prove the document by exhibiting the same. 2. The suits have been filed sometimes in the month of December, 2005. The eviction has been sought on the ground of arrears of rent; occupation of additional area belonging to the landlord which was not let out to the defendants and raising construction thereon as also on the ground of denial of landlord's title. Plaintiff's evidence was closed sometimes in April, 2011 and thereafter, he moved an application on 14.11.2011 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC seeking permission to produce some photographs of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »