The learned trial Court has committed serious error by convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence.
Application for temporary leave (parole) has to be decided by District Magistrate keeping in view that the object of parole is to rehabilitate the convicted prisoner.
Oppugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 10-2-2014 passed by the trial Court (judicial authority) in Civil Suit No. 207-A/2013 by which that Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the ‘AC Act, 1996’) relegated the parties to arbitration finding prima facie valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the dispute to be capable of settlement by arbitration, these two revision petitions have been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, one by the plaintiff and another by defendant No. 1 Bank stating the impugned order to be unsustainable in law. [Parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court.]
Application for compassionate appointment filed by the dependent of a Government servant who died prior to 1-11-1997 cannot be considered by the Government of Chhattisgarh in view of policy decision of the State Government.
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.
