These rules shall apply to the management of hazardous and other wastes as specified in the Schedules to these rules but shall not apply to – (a) waste-water and exhaust gases as covered under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981) and the rules made there under and as amended from time to time;
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.
Claiming a writ in the nature of quo warranto, Shri Santosh Sahu, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Jiten Kumar as Labour Commissioner is contrary to the statutory provisions, and for his consequent removal from the post of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
The brilliant question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this petition is whether exclusion of married daughter of the deceased SECL servant for being considered for dependent employment under the terms of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI (henceforth ‘NCWA-VI”) read with National Coal Wage Agreement-IX (henceforth ‘NCWA-IX”) is just, fair and reasonable ?
The scientific question that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is legal permissibility of Narco analysis, polygraph test (lie-detector test) and BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) test to be conducted against the will and without consent of a person suspected of an offence, subjected to either of the test(s).
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 1. The important question of law that emanates for consideration is whether the Entry Tax under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 can be levied upon the goods brought into railway area where the petitioners are carryingon […]
Seeking expunction of certain offending/objectionable remarks in the judgment delivered on 09.12.2014 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2014 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Gangaram Bareth and others, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition on the following factual backdrop:-
1. The superb question of law that falls for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog has jurisdiction and authority to pass an order directing the State Government and / or its authorities to hold departmental enquiry mandatorily and to recover the amount in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under sub-section (1) […]
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.
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 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (for short “the ASJ”) to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur (for short “the SJ”) for re-hearing the cases in accordance with law.
