Petition for return of Stridhan to be filed in form of plaint; ad valorem court fee not payable on such petition, only fixed court fee of Rs. 40/- payable. 1. Present is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family […]
1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
The interesting question which arises in this petition is, “Whether the Municipal Corporations are bound to purchase items mentioned in Schedule – 1 attached to the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 (as amended in 2004) (henceforth ‘the Rules’) only from the companies approved by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (henceforth ‘the CSIDC’) at the rates approved by the CSIDC”.
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashment of charge-sheet filed against him by jurisdictional police in the criminal court alleging the commission of offence under Section 21 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “P0SCO Act”).
Petitioner herein seeks to challenge the transfer of First Information Report (hereinafter referred as “F.I.R.”) No. 0/2015 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) dated 28/06/2015 for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) by its memo. order dated 09/07/2015.
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 power conferred under Section 8(2) of the Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh, Act, 2003 read with Statute 19 of the Statutes contained in the Schedule to the said Act and in view of the amendment to the Statute of the University published on 25-11-2014, extended the tenure of respondent No. 5 – Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh as Vice Chancellor of the University for a further period of five years or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier.
The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the SP, Rajnandgaon on 11.3.2003 dismissing him from service; the appellate order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the IG, Police, Raipur Range and the order dismissing his mercy petition by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur in October, 2003 whereby his appeal and mercy petition were dismissed.
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge appointment of respondent No. 3 as a member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon.
It is settled law that an employee on temporary promotion would continue to hold the lien in his substantive post until it is terminated. He cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time.
