Chhattisgarh Court July 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.
Hitendra Borkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. On perusal of the record would show that the petitioner for the same cause of action on an earlier occasion had filed a petition that was registered as W.P.(S) 6308/09 which was dismissed by this Court holding it to be devoid of merit on 04-11-2009. Now, by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has again challenged the same cause of action with slight modification in the writ petition and the grounds raised therein. 2. It is settled position of law that a litigant does not have a right to approach the Court time and again for the same cause of action by only changing grounds each time. All possible grounds ought to have been raised or challenged at the first instance. The litigant not doing so would not be permitted to reagitate the same cause of action repeatedly by only changing grounds each time. The issue which has been challenged once and which stands decided should not be allowed to reopen and reagitate only on the ground that the petitioner at the ...
Savita Khande and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Chaka ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
CAV Order: 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C. ), the petitioners herein seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 herein in M.Cr.C.No.6415 of 2014 on 4.12.2014 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 304-A of the IPC claiming to be the victims of the Sterilization Operation conducted by the respondent No.2. 2. In an application filed under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners herein averred that regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court, rather he obtained bail by suppression and misrepresentation of facts and this Court also considered irrelevant material of a substantial nature. It has been further pleaded that additional new adverse facts have also surfaced after grant of bail to the respondent No.2 as viscera reports of the victims made available after chemica...
M/s. C.M. Makhija Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, South Easter ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-17-2015
1. This order shall govern the application filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the applicant has sought to enforce an arbitral agreement and prays for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that an agreement was entered into with the S.E.C.L./ Non-applicants on 05.09.1994 for construction of DAV School at Kusmunda. Acceptance of tender was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 06.08.1994 and the value of the contract was Rs. 76,06,147.99 (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven and Ninety Nine Paisa Only). Under the terms of the agreement, it is further submitted that apart from the construction of DAV School, the ancillary work such as electrification, water supply and sanitation work were also to be executed by the applicant and the period of completion of job was 12 months including rainy season. It is further contended that as per the terms of the ag...
Sudhir Kumar Bhole and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
1. Since all the above applications have arisen out of the same crime number, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The accused/applicants have moved these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.9/2015 (Special Case No.794/2015) pending in the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Raipur, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'); 109, 120B, 409 and 420 of the IPC. M.Cr.C.No.3094/2015 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant namely Sudhir Kumar Bhole while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation as on 4-5-2012 entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard ri...
T.R.U. Nair Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary Depar ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
CAV Order: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order of termination dated 31.10.2001 passed by the respondent No.5. 2. Pertinent facts, necessary for adjudication of the dispute, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Overseer in 1968. He was later on promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer/Overseer in 1994. When the petitioner was transferred showing him as Overseer, he preferred a petition, being M.P. No.3886 of 1985. While deciding the said M.P. No.3886 of 1985, it was observed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Sub-Engineer. By order dated 03.07.1997, he was transferred from Katangi Municipality to Kondagaon Municipality and thereafter to Akaltara Municipality in July 2000. A show cause notice was issued to him vide Annexure P-4 asking him to show cause as to why departmental enquiry be n...
Ramendra Kishore Prasad Vs. S. Bhattacharya and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
CAV Order: 1. The petitioner, a resident of Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), has preferred this writ of quo warranto to oust the respondent No.1 from the office of Chairman and Managing Director (for short 'CMD') of Coal India Limited (for short 'CIL'). 2. The petition was heard on admission, wherein, issue concerning jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a writ petition was also addressed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, before proceeding to deal with the merits of the matter, this Court would first dwell on the issue of its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 3. Indisputably, the order of appointment of respondent No.1 as CMD of CIL has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi on 18.12.2014. The respondent No.2 is the Union of India arrayed through the Secretary of Ministry of Coal, which has its office in New Delhi. Similarly, the offices of the respondent No.3 Public Enterprises Selection Board a...
Deenbandhu and Another Vs. Birajho Bai
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-15-2015
CAV Order: 1. The short question that falls for consideration is, Whether the step-mother can claim maintenance from the step-son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. The above stated question arises in the following background: - 3. The non-applicant herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code stating inter alia that she is a widow aged about 70 years and has lost her husband on 22-7-2009, she has no source of earning and the applicants herein being her step-sons having misappropriated their property left by her husband are not maintaining her as such, she is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, an amount of maintenance to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month from each of the applicants be granted to her. The applicants herein seriously opposed the application filed by the non-applicant herein for maintenance and averred that the non-applicant herein is only a concubine of their father and as such, there is no family relation between her and...
President Parent Teacher Association, BSP Higher Secondary School and ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
1. First batch of writ petitions i.e. WP(L) Nos.35/2012, 40/2012, 41/2012, 42/2012, 46/2012, 47/2012, 48/2012, 49/2012, 50/2012 have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Durg, reinstating the workmen in the services of the petitioners along with 50% back wages. 2. Second batch of writ petitions i.e. WP(L) Nos.197/2012, 198/2012, 163/2012, 41/2013, 44/2013, 42/2013, 43/2013, 45/2013 have been preferred by Shri Pankaj Gautam, Ex-CEO, SAIL/BSP, Shri D.P. Satpathy, Deputy General Manager, Education Department, SAIL, BSP and Shri G.S. Dehre, Principal, BSP Middle School, Bhilai (Petitioner No.3 is different in these matters) challenging the order passed by the Labour Commissioner, Raipur granting sanction to prosecute the petitioners for alleged non-compliance of the impugned award. Since the fate of the second batch of writ petitions depends on the fate of first batch of writ petitions, both the batches involving similar facts and grounds, the...
Dr. Shukrajit Nayak Vs. Roshanlal Agrawal and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
CAV Order 1. The order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.2, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the respondent No.1, the returned candidate, wherein the respondent No.1 has challenged the tenability of the election petition and raised the preliminary objection that the election petition do not disclose the cause of action. 2. The petition is preferred inter-alia claiming the following relief :- (1). declare the election of the respondent in the constituency No.16 of Raigarh (C.G.) as void. (2). thus declare the petitioner as the successful elected candidate. (3). and/or any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 3. As would evident from the prayer made, the challenge is on the ground that the petitioner, who belongs to Indian National Congress for Legislative Assembly Constituency, 16 Raigarh and the respondent, who was the candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, it is pleaded that the petitioner, lost the elec...
Rupesh @ Rupeshwar Patel Vs. Ku. Siddhi Patel
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
(1) Impugning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 16-4-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Criminal MJC No.F-41/2014, the petitioner / husband has filed this revision under subsection (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') by which his application under Section 13 of the Act of 1984 has been rejected by the said Court. (2) Imperative facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as under: - (2.1) In an application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance allowance by the respondent herein, the Family Court permitted the respondent herein to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae leading to filing of application under Section 13 of the Act of 1984 by the petitioner herein stating inter alia that the petitioner be permitted to take the assistance of legal expert as amicus curiae, as he has no legal knowledge to conduct the proceeding. The Family Court by its impugned order rejected the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »