This petition for winding up has been preferred by the company itself without referring to the relevant clause of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ in short), however, in course of argument it was informed that the petition is under Section 433 (e) of the Act.
it would manifest that there has not only been wrong with the petitioner but he was discriminated in the matter of application of pre-amended 1991 policy of rehabilitation. For such denial, the respondent/SECL is taking shelter of its own wrong by continuing to remain in occupation of the petitioner’s land from 1994 without paying compensation till 2006 when repeated efforts of the petitioner compelled the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding and determine compensation.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC), Raigarh, dismissing his application under Section 387 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”) on the ground that before moving an application under Section 387 of the Act, the petitioner has not served statutory notice under Section 387(1).
Brief description of land mentioned and plan was made part of notification making it available for inspection; notification u/S 3A of NH Auth. Act fulfills requirement of law Since all the petitions involve common question of law and common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners are land holders whose […]
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.
