Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: press council act 1978 chapter iv miscellaneous Sorted by: recent Court: chhattisgarh Page 1 of about 5 results (0.070 seconds)

Vishal Jindal and Others Vs. Puja Jindal and Another

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... has affected any of their rights and, therefore, the impugned order is a pure and simple interlocutory order, against which, an appeal under section 29 of the act of 2005 is not maintainable in law. the learned additional sessions judge is absolutely justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable in law. 21. concludingly, ..... , which do not substantially affect or determine the lights and liabilities of the parties, shall not be appeal able within the meaning of section 29 of the act of 2005. however, even in the absence of such specific exclusion, purely procedural orders, which are only steps in aid for final disposal of an application ..... maintainable against the impugned order and thereby committed a manifest legal error of law in dismissing the appeal, as such, the appeal under section 29 of the act of 2005 was clearly maintainable as the order directing personal attendance has affected their rights substantially. 4. opposing the submissions made by counsel for the applicants. dr .....

Sunderlal Patel and Another Vs. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, throug ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... mhetre v. state of maharashtra (air 2011 c 312).) right to move freely is an attribute of personal liberty. (see maneka gandhi v. union of india (air 1978 sc 597).) 30. likewise, right to life set out in article 21 of the constitution of india means something more than mere survival or animal existence. (see ..... 21 while dealing with vicarious liability defined vicarious liability as under: - a master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment. this is by far the most important of the various cases in which vicarious responsibility or vicarious liability is recognised by ..... upholding the conviction. the registry of respondent no.1 immediately, on 25-6-2013, dispatched the copy of the judgment dated 18-6-2013 to the special judge (ndps act), janjgir-champa; to the chief judicial magistrate, janjgir; and to the superintendent, central jail, bilaspur, where the accused persons/petitioners herein were confined; and also .....

Savita Khande and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Chaka ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... supreme court has considered the scope of power of the high court under section 439(2) of the cr.p.c. in gurcharan singh v. state (delhi administration) and other ((1978) 1 scc 118) and catalogued the principles governing the powers of the courts granting and cancelling bail in paragraph 16 of the report which reads as under:- 16. section 439 .....

Satish Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Manju Dwivedi and Another

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... of maintenance and in absence of such proof, the application under section 127(2) of the code cannot be allowed. 14. in captain ramesh chander kaushal, (air 1978 sc 1807) (supra), their lordships of the supreme court has clearly held that wifes claim for maintenance by virtue of explanation (b) of section 125 of the ..... order would submit that order of tbe jurisdictional civil court granting decree of divorce particularly on the ground of desertion under section 13(1)(ia) of the hindu marriage act, 1956 is a decision of competent civil court within the meaning of section 127 (2) of the code, therefore, the order granting maintenance deserves to be ..... , this order of maintenance has attained finality. 2.6 thereafter, the present applicant filed an application for divorce under section 13(1) of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (henceforth the act, 1955) before the jurisdictional civil court, which was registered as hindu marriage case no. 40-a/2005 titled as satish chandra dwivedi v. manju dwivedi. .....

Ghurava Bai Vs. Vishnuram

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : I(2002)DMC324

..... such petition can be filed at the place of residence of the claimants. it would be fallacy of law to deny the said remedy to a neglect and hard pressed wife merely on the ground that she could claim it in a suit filed by the husband or she could claim it from the civil court in a petition filed ..... wives and discarded divorcees, abandoned children and needy and hapless parents.15. in the matter of captain ramesh chander kaushal v. mrs. veena kaushal and ors., reported in air 1978 sc 1807, the supreme court observed as under :'section 125, cr. p.c. is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within ..... the given case the husband has successfully proved the defences raised by him and also in projecting the grounds for dismissal of the application. as the provisions of the limitation act either in general or special are not applicable to an application under section 125, cr. p.c. the court is not required to look into the question of limitation, .....