Disputing the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhsttisgarh Rajya Anushuchit Janjati Aayog (hereinafter called as “the Commission”), the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The principle that there should not be an apprehension on the part of the party to the case that justice will not be done is not to be applied in extract terms nor the principle that once one of the accused in the case has lodged a complaint against the presiding officer, the case should necessarily be transferred.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2016 whereby the application filed u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the petitioner was rejected. Consequently the charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 307, 323 read with section 506 Part-II of IPC. The impugned order is filed as Annexure P-1 and the charges so framed is filed as Annexure P-2.
This election petition is concerned with the election held in respect of Legislative Assembly Area No. 83 of Kondagaon constituency wherein the voting took place on 11.11.2013 and the result of the election was declared on 08.12.2013 and the respondent Mohanlal Markam was declared as returned candidate. The following is the position of votes secured by the candidates :
Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26-5-2005 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order of the Commissioner setting aside the sale made by the original holders in favour of the petitioners and vesting the land in favour of the Government finding that the sale made by the original holders of the land in favour of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’), the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
The short question that emanates for consideration in these revisions is whether the Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 has power and jurisdiction to review its award on merits.
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 90 of 2016 registered at P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 186, 332, 353/ 34 of IPC. […]
In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued while considering the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.
This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand-father of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has granted a decree of maintenance in favour of the respondents directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and Rs. 1000/- each to two granddaughters who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.
This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant (for brevity ‘the husband’) to assail the legality and validity of the impugned judgement dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 208-A/2013, whereby his marriage with the respondent (for brevity ‘the wife’) has been annulled by issuing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
