Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(1) The petitioner herein is an interventional Cardiologist and on the date of occurrence was working as Senior Consultant in the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, while facing criminal prosecution for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 468 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth Cr.P.C. ) for quashment of chargesheet and criminal prosecution initiated against him for the above-stated offences. (2) The essential facts, as unfolded by the prosecution, to find out whether petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the criminal miscellaneous petition are as under:- (2.1) The State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda submitted a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein for commission of offences under Sections 304-A, 468 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the jurisdictional criminal court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2005, passed in C.S. No.20-B/2004, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the documents required to be filed alongwith the plaint were not filed at the time of filing of suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.68,244/- against the defendant on the basis of the pleading that the defendant has availed different loan at different point of time i.e. Rs.18,000/- on 30.05.2001, Rs.15,000/- on 22.06.2001 and Rs.17,000/- on 30.07.2001 and agreed to pay interest @ 1% per month, thereby total Rs.50,000/- was availed as a loan. 3. It was pleaded that after availing loan, the defendant/respondent failed to pay the loan in terms of the agreement and despite several demand, the same was not paid. Consequently, a legal notice was served recalling the amount of loan but despite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C. ), the applicant herein has filed the instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment dated 6-11-2004 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2004 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-3-2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, in Criminal Case No.664 of 2002, whereby the applicant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month respectively for offence under Section 337 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant herein has been charge-sheeted alleging that on 16-10-2002 a...
Tag this Judgment!