high court judgments - Page 20

CPC or Limitation Act has no application in writ proceeding or restoration / review / modification in a writ petition.

Smt. Jyoti W/o Shri Narayan Kumar Vs General Manager (Chhattisgarh High Court)

This is an application for restoration of WPS No. 1501 of 2015, which was dismissed for want of prosecution for non compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 29.04.2015 directing that if the petitioner fails to pay the process fee, as per rules, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Cou...

Read More

Govt servant obtaining caste certificate by fraud is not entitled to be retained in service

Dilip Hedau Vs Chhattisgarh Hastashilp Vikas Board (Chhattisgarh High Court)

In case of Government servant obtaining caste certificate based on fraud, he is not entitled to be retained in service and no departmental enquiry is necessary and in that situation...

Read More

Counting of votes for the post of Vice President, Nagar Panchayat, Bodri has to be made strictly in accordance with Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election of Vice President) Rules, 1998.

Vijay Verma Vs Kushal Pandey (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Invoking provisions contained in Section 26(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1961’) read with Rule 19(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1962’), the election petitioner, petitioner herein has preferred this revision call...

Read More

Agreement providing for arbitaration by the CG Arbitaration Tribunal. Section 9 and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not apply

M/s Lal Babu Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

The present batch of arbitration matters have been preferred by the contractors assailing the order passed by the District Judge refusing to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the 1996 Act' in short) or for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act. ...

Read More

In order to maintain a writ petition questioning appointment of a person, the writ petitioner must be a person qualified for the post/non-appointee.

Dr. Avinash Samal Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question the order Annexure P-1 dated 2-12-2014 whereby and whereunder, respondent No. 4 – Hon'ble Chancellor of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (for short 'the HNLU') in exercise of his powe...

Read More

In absence of motive, evidence of last seen together may not alone be sufficient to convict accused for murder

Smt. Jiteshwari Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Appellant would assail her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' in short) and sentence of life imprisonment for committing murder of her husband namely; Rohit Kumar (since deceased), a rickshaw puller, in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2003....

Read More

Appointment of lawyer as Government Advocate is professional engagement by State Government and Additional Public Prosecutor/AGP doesn’t hold “civil post”.

Cheedeelal Yadaw, Vs State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh High Court)

It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the re-appointment or renewal of existing Government Counsels since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the Government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy....

Read More

Writ petition against SCN is maintainable, if issued with premeditation

Shreyansh Jaiswal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. However, respondent-N.T.P.C. is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the opinion/observation made herein above....

Read More

Jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of offence under SC / ST Act

Smt. Achla D Sapre Vs Smt. Asha Mahilkar (Rajput) (Chhattisgarh High Court)

The trial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the Special Court under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 who has jurisdiction under the Act of 1989....

Read More

Mere order of ‘acquittal’ in order sheet is not judgment

Smt. Kiran Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Petitioners would assail the common order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through its Registrar General transferring ST No. 148/99 (State v. Smt. Kiran Singh and Others) and ST No. 71/95 (sic 71/99) (State v. T.P. Ratre) along with one civil suit and two civil appeals from the Court of Shri L.R. Thakur, Second Ad...

Read More
Page 20 of 388« First...10...1819202122...304050...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,403)
Company Law (3,301)
Custom Duty (6,465)
DGFT (3,371)
Excise Duty (4,011)
Fema / RBI (3,191)
Finance (3,350)
Income Tax (24,686)
SEBI (2,686)
Service Tax (3,273)

Search Posts by Date

June 2017
« May