Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-05-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Chh22
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity and legality of the notice dated 28-7-2008 (Annex-ure-P/4) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Further challenge is to the reply dated 10-10-2006 (Annexure-P/6) to the legal notice of the petitioners and intimation-cum-letter demanding possession of securities dated 23-10-2006 (Annexure-P/9).2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company, engaged in the business of milling, sorting & trading of rice and related products. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly given financial assets in the shape of packing credit hypothecation limit, foreign bill purchase limit, term loan and foreign letter of cred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-26-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT60(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. Challenge to this petition is the order dated 13-2-2006 (Annexure P-l) passed in Election Petition No. 8/A/89 (21)/2004-05 (Ramratan v. Anant Kumar and Ors.) by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Bhilaigarh, wherein the election of the petitioner herein to the post of Sarpanch was declared void as per provisions of Rule 23 (1) (b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules 1995').2. The brief facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case are, that the respondent No. 1 herein challenged the election of the petitioner, held on 15-1-2005, whereby the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pisid, under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') read with provisions of Rules, 1995 on the ground of disqualification for encroachment of Government land. In the election petition, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT32(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as President of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Mandi Samiti') in the election held on 20-1-2006 and on 24-1-2006. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Parsada, District Bilaspur, and voter in the Mandi Samiti. The respondent No. 5, despite having disqualification under Section 36 (m) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, i.e., the respondent No. 5 was having five living children out of which two were born after 26th January, 2001, filed nomination on 4-1-2006. The petitioner raised objection at the time of filing of nomination. The same was rejected. Thus, after election, this writ petition for declaring election of respondent No. 5 as void on the ground of having disqualification at the time of filing nomination.2. Shri B.L. Dembra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether the responden...
Tag this Judgment!