Loading...

e-High Court Report (AFR)


Latest 10 AFR Judgements with Case Note

1
SMT.SOORAJ BAI VS SMT.HIRAN BAI
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:1817]
Case Note : 15 SA No. 116 of 2005 Marriage in contravention of S. 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is void ab initio u/S 11. The necessary condition for a lawful marriage as laid down u/S 5 (i) is that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. Such marriage cannot be justified on the ground that the same was recognized by custom or usage.
Case No : SA/116/2005
Date of Judgement : 13.01.2026
2
SANJEET KUMAR BURMAN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:656]
Case Note : No individual or group of individuals is permitted to take the law into their own hands under the guise of protest, demonstration, or expression of grievance. The rule of law mandates that disputes and grievances must be addressed strictly through lawful and constitutional means. Any act of intimidation, obstruction, or violence, particularly against public servants performing their statutory duties, strikes at the very root of the administration of justice. The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not meant to shield persons who,prima facie, appear to have participated in acts undermining public order and the sanctity of judicial institutions.
Case No : MCRCA/1996/2025
Date of Judgement : 06.01.2026
3
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:539-DB]
Case Note : Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 empowers the State to regulate transit of forest produce “by land or water”. The expression cannot be expansively interpreted to include railway transportation, which falls exclusively within the Union List. Any such interpretation would render the provision constitutionally infirm.
Case No : WPC/4676/2022
Date of Judgement : 06.01.2026
4
RAMANUJ SHARMA VS THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Neutral Citation : [2026:CGHC:261]
Case Note : it is true that any border or judgment passed by any authority or the court having a jurisdiction is void . But at the same time, it is also settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum, and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion, the order is void . The concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding . The principle enables the court to grant appropriate remedies even if the relief obsolete.
Case No : FA/128/2019
Date of Judgement : 05.01.2026
5
KESHKAL G.N. INDIA BAUXITE MINES AND MINERAL LIMITED (J.V.C.) VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:61172-DB]
Case Note : The executive instruction cannot override the statutory provision but they are meant to supplement the law or to carry out the provisions of law.
Case No : WA/916/2025
Date of Judgement : 16.12.2025
6
SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:60874-DB]
Case Note : 1. The practice to file review petition without any substantial error apperant on the face of record, that too; with change of counsel os not conductive to healthy practice of the bar, which has the responsibility ton maintain the salutory practice of profession. 2. The scope of review is limited under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargur the case which has already been addressed and decided.
Case No : REVP/422/2025
Date of Judgement : 15.12.2025
7
RAVI KHANDEKAR VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:60943-DB]
Case Note : Where the prosecution relied upon electronic evidence such alleged ransom calls, call detail records and CCTV footage to establish kidnapping for ransom and allied offences, but failed to produce the mandatory certificate under section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, such electronic evidence would be inadmissible in law.
Case No : CRA/1656/2024
Date of Judgement : 15.12.2025
8
M/S EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL (A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN) VS UNION OF INDIA
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:60517-DB]
Case Note : Fiscal provisions must, where reasonably possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees. A statutory condition, though couched in mandatory language, cannot be enforced where compliance is factually impossible or where the very premise on which the condition operates does not exist.
Case No : WPT/228/2023
Date of Judgement : 12.12.2025
9
UNION OF INDIA VS SMT. R. SANTOSHI
Judge : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:59181-DB]
Case Note : Head Note A candidate included in a validly prepared select panel does not obtain a vested right to appointment, but is entitled to due, fair, and lawful consideration for such appointment. The appointing authority cannot disregard the select panel or refuse appointment arbitrarily or on extraneous grounds. When a duly selected candidate stands in merit and a corresponding vacancy exists, appointment may be denied only for cogent and justifiable reasons. The Government’s unexplained inaction, coupled with its failure to furnish any reason for the delay or non-issuance of appointments, renders the decision arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Case No : WPS/6291/2024
Date of Judgement : 05.12.2025
10
Polybond Rock Fibre Pvt. Ltd. VS Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited cspdcl
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:59768]
Case Note : Sale of property '"as is where is" basis encumbrances, including statutory dues, pass to purchaser, Condition u/S 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 requiring a new owner two clear arrears of the previous owner before grant of electricity supply, as the same has statutory character and binding on the purchaser.
Case No : WPC/2752/2016
Date of Judgement : 05.12.2025
Site is Designed and Maintained by High Court Computer Cell Bilaspur. (Disclaimer)
Hosted by National Informatics Centre (NIC), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India.