Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh57
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the subject-matter of the dispute involved in these petition is identical and common questions of law are involved for adjudication of these petitions.2. In Criminal Revision No. 49/07 the report was lodged by Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board') against the non-applicant No. 2 on 31-3-2006 regarding theft of electricity on 23-2-2006 and accordingly, Crime No. 227/06 for the offence punishable under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003) was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Special Judge by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in E. Cr. Case No. 4/06 allowed the application of the non-applicants for the present and discharged the non-applicants with liberty to the Board that it can take proper action in accordance with law.3. In Criminal Revision No. 573/06 on the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR1122]
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 21.7.1978 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No. 3, the Disciplinary Authority (The Divisional Manager) as also the order dated 25.1.1979 (Annexure-G) passed by the appellate authority, respondent No. 2 (The Zonal Manager) under the provisions of life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') sometime in the year 1964. For the said post he had filled up the Application Form dated 313.1964 in which he had declared his academic qualification as 'Matric passed and appeared in intermediate (result not out so far)'. He has shown his date of birth as 6.5.1938.3. On 12th July, 1977, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by the disciplinary authority in which it was specified that the Corporation has r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh24
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This revision is preferred by one of the defendants against the order by which the defendants' appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been dismissed by order dated 22-1-1999 passed by Smt. Nirmala Singh, Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower appellate Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 47/ 98. In this appeal, the defendants had challenged the order dated 17-10-1997 passed by Shri S. S. Netam, IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 17/97 by which their application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23-7-1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 117-A/88 by the trial Court was rejected.2. This case demonstrates how a pedantic and hyper-technical view taken by the Court while considering an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2006Chh92
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. In this batch of appeals, a question to be considered is whether the Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable in this High Court?2. The resume necessary for adjudication is as under:The State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 1st of November 2000, that is the appointed day, pursuant to M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000). It is a successor State. Part IV of the Act of 2000 relates to establishment of the High Court. Section 21 provides that from the appointed day, there shall be a separate High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as 'the High Court of Chhattisgarh') and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall become the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 22 provides for Judges of Chhattisgarh High Court and Section 23 provides for the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court. It has been stipulated in the Act of 2000 that the High Court of Chhattisgarh shall have, in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This appeal, in a matrimonial case, is by the husband and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.14-A/2004 whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage filed under Section 5(i)(b) read with Section 12, Section 13(1)(iii) and Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) by the appellant/husband has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- (i) The marriage between the appellant Mithilesh Shrivastava and the respondent Smt. Kiran Shrivastava was solemnized on 16-4-1998, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. No child was born from the wedlock. The marriage, according to the appellant, lasted up to 11-1-2000. (ii) According to the appellant, immediately after marriage, the appellant noticed some abnormal behavior of the respondent. He earlier informed Smt. Indu Verma, who was a mediator in the marriage, on telephone and then to the parents of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. In this batch of writ petition and writ appeals, constitutional validity of an explanation under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, added by the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2013 (Amendment Act 2 of 2014) has been challenged. Impugned explanation, added by way of amendment is extracted below : "Explanation - Where points raised in the petition before the Division Bench against the order of judgment of the single Judge were adjudicated upon, by the sub-ordinate Court, Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Authority, as the case may be, it shall be presumed that such order or judgment by the single Judge of the High Court has been passed in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India." W.P (C) No. 2193 of 2014 has been filed by the High Court Bar Association, by which, prayer has been made for declaring the aforesaid amendment unconstitutional. 2. In c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2007Chh142; 2008(1)MPHT45(CG)
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. During the course of arguments on 1-8-2007 Shri Vikrarn G. Tamaskar, learned Counsel for the applicant had prayed that this Court should invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and set aside the order dated 7-12-2001 as also quash the proceedings as being patently without jurisdiction. Before invoking such jurisdiction, learned Counsel were called upon to address on the order dated 7-12-2001 rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code filed by the applicant herein for rejection of the plaint.2. Learned Counsel were heard.3. Admitted facts in brief are as follows:One Laljee Joshi filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bemetara (hereinafter referred to as 'the RCA') under the provisions of the then Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the respondent/tenant Bhaiyyaram on ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. I.A.No.2, application for taking documents on record in support of the stay application, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission as also on I.A.No.1, application for interim relief. 3. While filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order dated 6-7-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.6A of 2010; and /or b) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings anywhere (except in India) including from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice, or any other court in England which would have the effect of preventing the petitioner from commencing and or pursuing any proceedings in India to set aside the award dated 17-6-2010...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
ORAL ORDER Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. I.A.No.2, application for taking documents on record in support of the stay application, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission as also on I.A.No.1, application for interim relief. 3. While filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order dated 6-7-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.6A of 2010; and /or b) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings anywhere (except in India) including from commencing and/or pursuing any proceedings in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice, or any other court in England which would have the effect of preventing the petitioner from commencing and or...
Tag this Judgment!