Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act, 1971), this contempt petition has been filed by the contempt petitioner herein alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 23.09.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WPC No. 1858 of 2014 (M/s Mile Stone Soft. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). 2. The imperative facts, necessary to find-out whether respondent/contemnor prima facie dis-obeyed and disregarded the order of this Court and as to whether charges is to be framed against the respondent/contemnor are as under:- 2.1 The contempt petitioner herein instituted a writ petition (C) 1858 of 2014 impleading the State of Chhattisgarh, Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh, questioning the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Chief Electoral Officer, Election Commission of Chhattisgarh. In the said writ petition Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This order will govern the disposal of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as also the election petition filed by the petitioner. 2. By way of instant election petition, the Election Petitioner Lalji Chandravanshi had challenged the election for the Constituency No. 71 namely Pandariya Assembly Constituency held in the month of November, 2008 in State of Chhattisgarh. The Election Commission had notified the election schedule for conducting assembly election for the state of Chhattisgarh in October 2008 and as per the schedule of notification, the polling took place on 14.11.2008 and on the same day the election was declared. In the election, as many as 9 candidates including the petitioner contested the election for the Assembly Constituency No. 71 Pandariya. The petitioner contested on behalf of Bhartiya Janta Party whereas respondent No. 1 Akbar Bhai contested the election as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Judgment on Board: (1) The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by defendant No. 2 and 3 are as under:- 1. Whether in the absence of proof of will the property could be held to of the exclusive owner-ship of plaintiffs 1 to 3? 2. Whether in view of the fact that property was joint Hindu Family Property, provisions of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardian-ship Act, 1956 are attracted? (2) The imperative facts required for determination of above-stated substantial questions of law are as under:- [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court] (3) The plaintiffs/respondent No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for the declaration that sale deed dated 20.1.1975 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2-Radhe Shyam, and the sale deed dated 22.2.1979 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is null and void as the defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 13.05.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur division in case No. 190/A-23/99-2000. 2. Facts in brief necessary to find out as to whether petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed in this writ petition, are as under :- 2.1 Kapoor Singh/non-applicant No.2 before the trial court sold the subject land to the petitioner/Vidyadhar Aghariya by registered sale deed dated 03.11.1971 area 6.42 Acres, thereafter, his daughter Smt. Khurai Bai/respondent No.3 (who died during the pendency of this writ petition and her legal representatives were brought on record) filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Saraipali (for short, S.D.O.) for reversion of land under Section 170-B of MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code). 2.2 The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The respondent No.2/tenderer in terms of agreement entered into between the parties, raised a dispute before the Registrar, Co operative Societies, under Section 64 of MP/CG Co operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960). 2. The registrar, Co operative Societies, in exercise of power conferred under Section 66(3) of the Act, 1960, transferred the said dispute to Assistant Registrar, Sahakari Sansthayen, Rajnandgaon for disposal in accordance with law. Subsequently, Deputy Registrar of Co operative Society was posted on the said post and ultimately the Deputy Registrar, Co operative Society passed the order on 09.03.2000 dismissing the claim of respondent No.2 herein and allowing the counter claim of petitioners herein. 3. Being aggrieved against the said order, the respondent No.2 assailed the same before the Registrar, Co operative Society under the provisions of Section 78 of the Act, 1960. The said appeal was allowed by the Registrar by order dated 09.04.2003. Questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 31-3-2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been dismissed from service on the ground that at the time of obtaining employment and submitting verification form, he did not disclose the information about the criminal case registered as Crime No.23/11, under Section 302 IPC, PS Surajpur and thus he has made himself ineligible and disqualified for securing public employment. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 26-9-2013. He joined the services and continued on the said post. On the basis of the verification form submitted by him, the appointing authority summoned a verification report from the concerned Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police, Surajpur sent a verification report to the petitioner's appointing authority mentioning about the registration of above mentioned criminal case against him. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show-cause n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Both the petitioners i.e. Power Grid Corporation of India limited (for short 'Power Grid') and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (for short 'NTPC') are Public Sector undertakings. They have preferred the present writ petitions seeking quashment of the orders passed by the State authorities directing them to execute the lease and get it registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Registration Act'). The petitioners have further prayed for restraining the respondents from charging or deducting the amount of registration fees and stamp duty. The petitioner Power Grid has been allotted Government land admeasuring 53.68 acres at Village Janjgiri, R.I. Circle Ahiwara, Tehsil Damdha, District Durg vide communication dated 20-10-1997 on payment of premium of Rs. 76,74,545/- and annual rent of Rs. 5,75,591/-. 2. The petitioner NTPC has been granted the Government land admeasuring 604.78 acres situated at villag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order 1. The petitioner, who appeared in the LLM examination conducted by respondent No.2 Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (Henceforth 'the University') in 2010, has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of second mark sheet of LLM (Part-II) (Annexure-P/2) with reduced marks; for an enquiry by an independent agency and decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to further direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as part time teacher and permit him to appear in the Ph.D. Examination. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that after completing his LLB degree, the petitioner studied LLM course in the respondent university. He cleared LLM Examination in the year 2010 with 57.33% marks i.e. 212 out of 300 and was satisfied with his performance, as he was eligible to be registered for PhD having secured more than 55% marks. The petitioner never applied for revaluation, therefore, he was shocked to receive informati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed this petition questioning the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 19.03.2004, whereby the Board of Revenue by its impugned order has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector as well as Sub Divisional Officer (for short, S.D.O. ) and remanded back the matter to the Collector to register revision suo-motu and pass orders on merits. 2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:- 2.1 That the suit land originally belonged to Karmaha son of Shri Shiv Lal Gond. Shri Parasram Kanwar purchased the said land by registered sale deed dated 27.01.1967 and thereafter Parasram with the permission of Collector under Section 165(6) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code) dated 15.12.1973 sold the subject land to petitioner by registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974. 2.2 On the report of Patwari of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Order On Board 1. The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the District Registrar and Licencing Authority, Korba revoking the petitioner's licence for sale of stamps under Rule 27 (c) of the CG Stamp Rules, 1942 (henceforth 'the Rules'). 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was granted a vendor's licence under the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for the first time in the year 2006. The licence was renewed in terms of Rule 26 (3)(c) of the Rules and on the date of passing of the impugned order, the renewed licence was in operation. 3. One RTI activist moved an application before the Public Information Officer, Office of District Registrar on 10.3.2014 seeking copy of stamp register maintained by the petitioner for the period 1.11.2008 to 31.12.2008. He also sought copy of entries from 9500-9700 maintained by the petitioner in her register of the year 2008-09. The Sub Registrar informed the RTI activist that the said...
Tag this Judgment!