Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: chhattisgarh Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.006 seconds)

Jan 04 2012 (TRI)

Sheikh Sultan and Others Vs. Mrs. Preeti Dawada and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur

Decided on : Jan-04-2012

s.c. vyas, president: 1. this order will govern disposal of appeal nos.406/2011, 407/2011 and 408/2011, which have been preferred by the same op nos.1 and 2 / appellants, against different complainants / respondent no.1 and the same op no.2 / respondent no.2 of complaint case nos.38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 respectively, which have been decided by district consumer disputes redressal forum, raipur (hereinafter called .district forum. for short), vide similar order dated 20.06.2011. 2. mrs. preeti dawda was complainant of complaint case nos.40/2007 and 38/2007, whereas one mr. rajesh sanghani was complainant of complaint case no.39/07. the case of complainants of all the complaint cases before district forum was that plot no.867/2 is situated at baijnath para, raipur and an agreement was executed between the appellants as well as respondent no.2 on 15.06.1991 for construction and development that particular plot and then construction of apartment house was carried out on that plot and agreements were executed for sell of flats and shops of that apartment house with the complainants of these complaint cases. as per the two complaint cases of mrs. preeti dawda, she entered into an agreement for sell of shop no.1 and 15 of the ground floor of the apartment house, whereas case of rajesh sanghani was that he entered into agreement for sell of flat no.(a) of that apartment house and the said flat was sold by agreement of sell and letter of delivery of possession dated 07.03.1994. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2012 (HC)

MangtIn and Others Vs. Rahibai and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Jan-24-2012

(second appeal under section 100 of the cpc) 1. by this second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short `cpc'), the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 5.11.93 passed by the first additional district judge to the court of the district judge, raipur, in civil appeal no.76-a/91, reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the civil suit dated 5.12.84 passed by the third civil judge class-ii, raipur, in civil suit no.468a/84. 2. present second appeal was admitted for consideration on 1.7.94 on the following substantial question of law:- "whether the transaction entered into between the parties, ex.p-1 is a mortgage or a sale outright?" 3. as per claim of respondent no.1 rahi bai, rahi bai has purchased the suit property bearing khasra no.720 area 1.38 hectare situated at village tulsi p.h.no.111, district raipur vide registered sale deed dated 15.4.1976 on payment of consideration of rs.3000/- and obtained possession, name of respondent no.1 has been mutated vide order dated 16.3.79. the appellants have committed theft of the crop shown by respondent no.1, then respondent no.1 has lodged the f.i.r., she was dispossessed by the appellants in the year 1979. then suit for possession has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 on 12.8.80. by filing written statement the present appellants had denied the adverse allegation and have specifically pleaded that appellant no.1 has taken loan for her .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2012 (HC)

Mangri Bai and Others Vs. Dhani and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Feb-13-2012

(second appeal under section 100 of the cpc) 1. by this second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short `cpc'), the appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 16.2.1995 passed by the additional district judge, jashpurnagar, in civil appeal no.10-a/98, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1990 passed by the civil judge class-ii, jashpurnagar, in civil suit no.155a/87, whereby the civil judge class-ii has dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs against defendant nawas i.e. predecessor-in-title of the present appellants for declaration and possession of the suit property. 2. the present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on 18.4.95 on the following substantial question of law:- "was the lower court incorrect in not holding that jamabandi and khasra and other revenue documents filed by the defendant, had presumption of correctness about them, which presumption has not been held to be rebutted by the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the suit should have been dismissed ?" 3. as per plaint allegation, one chamra was owner of the suit property total area 39.80 acres situated at purnanagar, tahsil jashpur, he was having two sons namely fouda and ganga, ganga died unmarried during his minority and property was inherited by his only son fouda who died in the year 1958 leaving behind two sons dhani and khasru and wife rondhibai. after death of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2012 (HC)

Smt. Padma and Others Vs. Prabhat Bajpayee and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Feb-16-2012

(second appeal under section 100 of code of civil procedure) 1. this is defendant's second appeal filed under section 100 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003 passed by the ist additional district judge, bastar, in civil appeal no. 26-a/02. 2. facts in brief are as under: (i) original plaintiff - prabhat bajpayee filed a suit for declaration of title; rectification of sale deed, possession and mesne profits. (ii) according to plaintiff, he purchased the suit land bearing khasra no. 50 area 2 acres situated in village shasankachora from defendants no.1 and 2 for a sale consideration of rs.3,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 18.05.1977 and obtained its possession. (iii) in the year 1994, he came to know that in the sale deed the name of village has wrongly been mentioned as hatkachora in place of shasankachora. vide notice dated 25.11.1994 he asked defendants no. 1 and 2 for rectification of above mistake. no reply was given by the defendants. (iv) the suit land stands mutated in plaintiff's name vide assistant settlement officer's order dated 05.01.1995. (v) in the month of june, 1995, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff. (vi) by filing written statement, while not disputing execution of sale deed dated 18.05.1977 in plaintiff's favour, the defendants denied receipt of sale consideration of rs.3000/- and delivery of possession. according to the defendants, due to non-payment of sale consideration, they did not hand over the possession of the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2012 (HC)

Payal Travels Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Jan-23-2012

(writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india) 1. challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.06.2011 passed in revision no. 98/2011 by the respondent no. 1, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by respondent no. 2, has been dismissed. 2. the facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that petitioner is holding two permanent stage carriage permits for the route durg to konta and return, single trip daily. the respondent no. 3 applied for grant of temporary permit on the route jagdalpur to kalimela. the respondent no. 2, on the application of the respondent no. 3, granted temporary permit from 01.05.2011 to 31.07.2011. being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no.1, challenging the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2011. thus, this petition. 3. at the very outset, shri sao, learned government advocate and shri sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submit that the period of temporary permit has already expired as it was from 01.05.2011 to 03.07.2011. thus, this petition has become infructuous. 4. shri bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the period for temporary permit has already been over, however, the question of law involved in this petition still survives as the respondent no. 3 was granted temporary permit to ply his bus on an inter- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2012 (HC)

Manharan Lal Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Jan-30-2012

(writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india) 1. by this petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of fir (annexure p-1) as well as the sanction order dated 26.12.2011 (annexure p-2). 2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as accountant in the department of school education and posted at block education office patan, durg. on 19.11.2010, the petitioner gave an amount of rs.20,000/- to the respondent no.5 towards loan, for which the respondent no.5 executed an agreement (annexure p-3) and assured that the same will be repaid after getting the retiral dues. the respondent no.5 retired on 30.11.2010 and received the retiral dues on 22.12.2010 in the form of account payee cheque. thereafter, the petitioner asked the respondent no.5 to repay the loan amount. instead of repaying the loan amount, the respondent no.5 lodged a false complaint stating that the petitioner has demanded money for releasing the retiral dues. the respondent no.3 without verifying the authenticity of the complaint, proceeded against the petitioner on 12.01.2011 on the basis of written complaint dated 06.01.2011 filed by the respondent no.5. 3. in fact, on 12.01.2011, the petitioner was on casual leave. on the said date, the respondent no.5 asked the petitioner to come to the office of the block education officer for repaying the loan amount and when the loan amount was given to the petitioner, the authorities of anti corruption bureau caught .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2012 (HC)

Tintus Tigga Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Feb-15-2012

(writ petition u/a 226/227 of the constitution of india) 1. challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.01.2012 (annexure p/1) passed by the respondent no. 2/collector, ambikapur, whereby the application of the petitioner filed against the no confidence motion under section 21(4) of the chhattisgarh panchayat raj adhiniyam, 1993, was dismissed. 2. the facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat, changori, janpad panchayat, lundra, district surguja. the respondent no. 5 alongwith other panchas, gave an intimation to the sub divisional officer, ambikapur, under sub-rule (1) of rule (3) of the chhattisgarh panchayat (gram panchayat ke sarpanch tatha up-sarpanch, janpad panchayat tatha zila panchayat ke president tatha vice president ke virudh avishwas prastav) niyam, 1994 (for short the rules, 1994') for no-confidence motion against the petitioner, the sarpanch of the gram panchayat, on the allegation of financial irregularities. the sdo registered a case and fixed the date for further order on 18.08.2011 (annexure p/5) and appointed ambros toppo, tahsildar lundra, as presiding officer, for convening the meeting of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 26.08.201, which was held to be carried out as 9 members voted in favour and 3 against the no confidence motion. it is the case of the petitioner that the procedure as envisaged under section 21 of the adhiniyam, 1993 was not followed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2012 (HC)

M.L. Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Feb-16-2012

(writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india) 1. by this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 1-2-2012 (annexure - p/6) passed by the respondent no.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of chief executive officer, janpad panchayat, dondi, district balod to the post of chief executive officer, janpad panchayat, ramanujgani, district balrampur. 2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malaise of frequent transfers because by order dated 30-6-2009 (annexure - p/1) the petitioner has been transferred from the post of chief executive officer, janpad panchayat duldula, district jashpur to the post of assistant commissioner, tribal development, koriya. thereafter, by order dated 30-8-2011 (annexure - p/2) from baikunthpur to dondi, district balod and afterwards within a period of four months by the impugned order dated 1-2-2012 the petitioner has again been transferred from dondi to ramanujganj only to accommodate respondent no.2. learned counsel further submits that as per the transfer policy no employee can be transferred before completion of 2+ years service at a particular place unless and until there is any compliant of grievous or serious nature. the impugned order has been passed without there being any administrative exigency. the children of the petitioner are prosecuting their studies at bhilai, durg and on account of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2012 (HC)

Moolchand Kotdiya Vs. Dr. Paraschand Vaidya

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Mar-01-2012

(second appeal under section 100 of the civil procedure code, 1908) 1. this is defendants'/tenants' second appeal under section 100 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2001 passed by the additional district judge, mungeli in civil appeal no.12-a/1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1998 passed by the civil judge class-1 in civil suit no. 67-a/1991. 2. the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) whether in view of the evidence on record) and non-examination of plaintiff/respondent in person after amendment of pleading, the bona fide requirement was not duly proved? (2) whether the plea raised by the defendants/appellants regarding title of landlord amounts to disclaimer of title? 3. brief facts of the case are as under: (i) according to the plaintiff, he purchased two shops situated at main road, sadar bazar, mungeli including suit accommodation vide registered sale deed dated 31st march, 1980 from one prafulla kumar nahata and became its owner. the defendants accepted plaintiff to be their new landlord by attornment and also paid rent to him. (ii) vide notice dt.11.02.1989 (ex.d.1), the plaintiff intimated regarding above purchase to the appellants and also demanded vacant possession of the suit accommodation on the ground that presently he is studying in radiology and he would require the suit accommodation bona fidely for starting his x-ray clinic. (iii) in reply to above notice (ex.d.2), the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2012 (HC)

Vishnu Sahu and Others Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Mar-05-2012

(writ petitions under article 226/227 of the constitution of india) 1. since wp (s) nos.6797, 6032, 6114, 6251, 6256, 6267, 6289, 6294, 6302, 6324, 6365, 6491, 6492, 6500, 6501, 6502, 6562, 6563, 6567, 6573, 6605, 6606, 6664, 6672, 6713, 6720, 6740, 6767, 6795, 6799, 6800, 6801, 6802, 6803, 6804, 6805, 6806, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6810, 6813, 6814, 6815, 6822, 6823, 6843, 6846, 6851, 6875, 6890, 6898, 6934, 6951, 6952, 6958, 6967, 6974, 6979, 7022, 7055, 7117, 7135, 7155, 7320, 7323, 7367, 7371, 7387, 7422, 7529, 7562, 7571, 7604, 7605, 7606, 7607, 7608 and 7647 of 2010 and w.p. (s) nos.73, 115, 120, 139, 237, 621, 685 and 3752 of 2011 involve common facts as well as common question of law, thus, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. challenge in this batch of petitions is to the advertisements dated 27.10.2010, 27.09.2010, 29.10.2010, 08.10.2010, 14.10.2010, 12.10.2010, 22.10.2010 and 21.10.2010 issued by the district education officers, durg, baloda bazar, dhamtari, bilaspur, raigarh, kabeerdham, janjgir-champa and mahasamund, respectively, for appointment on the post of head master of primary schools under the limited competitive examination for regular shiksha karmis grade i, ii and iii. the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement was that all the shiksha karmis grade i, ii and iii, should have minimum higher secondary pass certificate and b.ed/d.ed/b.t.i. trained. it was provided that the shiksha karmis should have 7 years of experience .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //