Court : Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. Government of India promulgated the Act known as Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short "the Act, 2009") and also framed rules thereunder known as Rules, 2010. The object and reason for enactment of such Act is to provide free elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality to the children from disadvantaged groups or weaker sections. It casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education of such children. As the petitioners were desirous to take advantage of the Act, 2009, on behalf of petitioner No. 1/student, his father petitioner No. 2 made an application in the office of District Education Officer, Raipur (in short "DEO"). As per rules, the application was forwarded to the Nodal Officer appointed by the State of CG and after making a preliminary enquiry and examining the documents, the Nodal Officer recommended the case of petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Both the appeals are being tried and decided together by this common order as they are arising out of the same accident and similar facts are involved. 2. The M.A. No. 512/2004 is preferred by Insurance Company against the liability fastened on the Company and the another M.A. No. 589 of 2004 is by the claimants for enhancement of the award. 3. No representation is made on behalf of Biharilal and Baliram, owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the claimants, are that on 17th November, 2001, the deceased Ramfal was travelling in a vehicle Metador bearing No. M.P.-26/D-5500, going from Champa to Akaltara. The vehicle which was being driven by Baliram in a rash and negligent manner met with an accident and turned turtle and thereby Ramfal died on the spot. The incident was reported to the police. It was stated that the deceased was working on the post of Peon in the Electricity Department and was getting a salary of Rs. 8,281 per month....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. This instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No.37-A/97 by the Second Additional District Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur). By such judgment and decree, the appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No.226-A/96 by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Jagdalpur. The instant appeal is by the plaintiff. 2. The briefly stated facts of the case is that a suit was filed by the appellant against Trilokinath Agarwal, Smt. Usha Kiran Agarwal and Deepak Agrawal for declaration and permanent injunction. The undisputed facts are that the house comprised over the Nazul sheet No. 78, Plot No.103/2, admeasuring 6285 sq.ft. was recorded in name of M/s. Gajadhar Prasad Kashi Prasad, a partnership firm. The firm had four partners namely Bhuwneshwar Prasad Agarwal (died on 13.07.1962), Udaynarayan Agarwal (Plaintiff), Trilokinath Agarwal (Defendant-1) and Smt. Singharabai (died on 21.09.1973). The said propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2014, passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sakti, whereby the order dated 15.05.2014, passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2014, by the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Sakti, was reversed and the case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for adjudication on merits. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of this case are that one Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, Anil Kumar Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Agrawal filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Sakti against Prakash Kumar for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs were the tenant and the Prakash Kumar being the landlord was arrayed as a defendant No.1 and the Officer-in-charge C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd., was arrayed as defendant No.2. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are the tenants were carrying on the business in the name and style of Vijay Book Depot and General Stores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The appeal is against the award dated 25/09/2014 passed in Case No.28/W.C. Act/2013 Fatal by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg. By such award, a compensation of Rs.4,36,800/- was awarded to the claimants. The claimants are the father and mother of deceased Birendra Kumar Sahu. 2. The brief facts of the case was that Birendra Kumar Sahu was working as labour under non-applicant No.2 Jitendra Kumar Jain who was having the vehicle bearing No.C.G. 17-H/0540. On 7/11/2012 at about 11 O clock while he was loading rice bran in the vehicle, vehicle came in contact with the electricity wire and thereby he was electrocuted. It was stated that at the time of death, Birendra Kumar Sahu was 20 years old and was getting amount of Rs.150/- per day as wages. On that ground, the claim for compensation was filed. 3. After adjudication, the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation passed an award on 25/09/2014 which reads as under:- HINDI 4. Learned counsel appearing on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral-Order: 1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the legality and propriety of the notices issued by respondents herein demanding Mandi fee and Nirashrity fee from it in respect of agricultural produce brought by the petitioner from outside the State of Chhattisgarh in the Neora Mandi area for processing. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner is Proprietor Firm and the business of Firm is to produce paddy from the market and then, after processing it, converted into rice. 2.2 It is a case of the petitioner that he is not dealing with the business by buying the paddy from other Mandi but the petitioner is purchasing paddy from different Mandi and after purchasing the same, it is converted into rice and broken rice. In the month from November, 2000 to January, 2001, he has purchased paddy from various towns of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(1) This order shall govern the disposal of I. A. No. 2, application under Order 7 Rule 14 (sic 11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC ) raising preliminary objection that Election Petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose triable and reasonable cause of action for the grounds stated in the election petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed summarily invoking jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. (2) Election petitioner has filed this Election petition under Section 80A read with Section 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the RP Act, 1951 ) for declaring the election of respondent No.1, from 3 Bainkunthpur Legislative Constituency as illegal and void under Section 98(b) of the RP Act, 1951 mainly on the following grounds:- Firstly : That the nomination of returned candidate was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, materially affecting the result of returned candida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The Petitioners through the instant Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have sought for relief of quashment of the Complaint Case No.236 of 2011 pending before the Court of JMFC, Raipur to the extent so far as the Petitioners are concerned. 2. The brief relevant facts for adjudication of the Petition are that Respondent No.1-Keshav Das R. Jadwani filed a Complaint case before the JMFC, Raipur stating that he in the capacity of A-4 category Government Contractor had received certain contracts from Respondent No.3-Firm i.e. M. Dewanshi Construction Partnership Firm relating to construction work and road construction. According to the Complainant, Respondent No.3-Firm of which Respondent No.2-Subhash Chandra Roy as well as all the present Petitioners were active Partners had made a part payment of Rs.70,000 by work of a Cheque bearing No.795914 on 8.12.2010 for the said construction work carried by the Complainant. According to the Complainant/Respondent No.1, the said Cheque was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order 1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.20/2012, registered at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for commission of offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), the applicant herein has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant and other co-accused persons obtained Rs.19,50,000/- from various persons between 24.06.2011 to December, 2011 for securing employment for them, and thereby cheated the complainant and committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant has not committed any offence and four co-accused have already been acquitted by the jurisdictional criminal court, since the charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant in his absence, he could not contest the trial, and therefore, he be grante...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Petitioner's father Deharu Ram died in harness on 09.10.1998 while working on the post of Assistant Meter Reader with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short, MPEB) posted at Bilaspur. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment which remain pending consideration, meanwhile, new State of Chhattisgarh came to be carved out w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short CSEB) came to be constituted w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Upon constitution of new Electricity Board in Chhattisgarh, the MPEB sent back the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to newly constituted board/respondent No.1. The said respondent No.1 did not consider the petitioner's application for such an appointment leading to filing of this writ petition commanding the respondent No.1 to consider the case of petitioner as per existing policy in force when the petitioner's father died. 2. The respondent No.1 has filed its counter affidavit stating int...
Tag this Judgment!