Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This is an appeal against the award dated 31st October 2012 passed by the Vth Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,750/- by holding that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a claim petition u/s 163-A the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred by the widow, two minor children and father of deceased namely Shiv Kumar Sahu. It was pleaded that on 30th November, 2008, while the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-DE/6782, he was dashed by another motorcycle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04/CZ-6093 driven by original non-applicant No.1 Santosh Kumar Duseja, as a result of such impact of accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. The said offending vehicle bearing C.G.04/CZ 6093 was insured with IFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company, original Non-applicant No.3 whereas the vehicle which was driven by the deceased bearing No.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Cav Order: 1. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Criminal Revision separately filed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Since the questions of law and facts involved in both these petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. A.K.R. Transport filed two complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) with the averments that respondent M/s. Kamakshi Shipping had handed over two Post Dated Cheques (PDC) - one amounting to Rs.4,90,000/- in Cr.M.P.No.620/2015 and the other amounting to Rs.2,45,000/- in Cr.M.P.No.650/2015 drawn in favour of complainant/ petitioner herein in the month of February, 2014. The cheques were post dated of 10.04.2014. The cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, Visakhapatnam, who was the banker of M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order: 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to the order dated 23.02.2015, passed in M.J.C. No.121/2013, passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an interim application (I.A. No.2/15), filed by the appellant to set-aside the arbitral award dated 15.07.2013 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Tiwari (Retd.) and two others. After passing of the said award, an application was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1996') to set-aside the said award raising various grounds. While the said application for setting-aside the award was pending, another preliminary objection to the maintainability of the award was made by I.A. No.2/15 on 16.01.2015. It was contended in the said application that share purchase agreement containing arbitration clause was not exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Impugning the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.52/2001, the Insurer/Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition stating that the Order passed by the Claims Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Imperative facts necessary to Judge the correctness of the impugned Order states as under: 1.1. In the claim case filed by the Respondents/Claimants herein, the Claims Tribunal passed Award on 3.5.2002 and thereafter in compliance of the Award, the petitioner-Company deposited the Award amount inclusive of Interest on 25.6.2003 Rs. 25,000, on 14.7.2003 Rs. 27,500 and by Cheque dated 28.5.2003, 11.7.2003 and 24.7.2003 Rs. 1,48,612, however, the Petitioner-Insurance Company deducted an amount of Rs.5,124 on payment of Rs.51,236 made to the Respondents/Claimants on 24.7.2003 as tax deducted at source under the provisions contained in Section194-A of the In...
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
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 13.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.271/W.C. Fatal/2003, by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Rajnandgaon, whereby the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts in this case are that the deceased Hiranand Verma was working as Chemist in the factory of non-applicant No.1 from 01.03.1993 with a monthly wages @ Rs.2800/- besides other emoluments. On 13.12.2001 at about 2.30 o'clock, the deceased was going on his Scooter bearing No. M.P.-24-ED-6594 to his house, at that time a Metador coming from opposite side, dashed the deceased near a place known as Sukhchain Dhaba, whereby the deceased sustained injuries. It was pleaded that the said Scooter was given by the non-applicant No.1 so as to commute the deceased from his house to place of working. It was stated that on the date of accident, the said vehicle, wherein the deceased was traveling was given on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.02-A/2012 by the Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed with a finding that the suit filed is barred under the provisions of Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a civil suit for specific performance of contract for sale dated 04.07.1987 in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.1245 and 1246 alongwith the superstructure was filed against the respondents. It was contended that pursuant to sell the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- has been paid to the respondents. The prayer made in such suit was for execution of the sale deed in terms of the agreement entered in between the parties. After issuance of notice, the written statement was filed wherein all the averments of the plaint were denied. In the plaint, the periodical payments of sale consideration were shown to be made at par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!