Latest 10 AFR Judgements with Case Note |
|
1 |
BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS MOHAN KANHAI
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:46246]
Case Note : " If a vehicle is duly insured and there is no branch of the insurance policy, the insurer remain liable to pay compensation , even if the registration has not been transferred to the subsequent purchaser who was in possession and control of the offending vehicle."
Case No : MAC/354/2018
Date of Judgement : 10.09.2025
|
2 |
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:45211-DB]
Case Note : If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of the investment made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the Assessee and there would be no further burden on the Revenue t6o show that the income is from any Particular source.
Case No : TAXC/167/2023
Date of Judgement : 04.09.2025
|
3 |
JITENDRA DHRUW VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:45186-DB]
Case Note : in cases involving heinous crimes such as multiple murders, sexual assault, and theft the testimony of an injured eyewitness is of high evidentiary value, his presence at the scene naturally established by his injuries. where such testimony is corroborated by postmortem reports, medical evidence, forensic/ DNA analysis and recovery of incriminating property,the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstances, sufficient prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Recovery pursuant to disclosure under section 27 of the Evidence Act, when corroborated by independent Wintness and forensic reports constitutes a strong incriminating circumstances,
Case No : CRA/1064/2023
Date of Judgement : 04.09.2025
|
4 |
Thakur Singh VS State Of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:44202-DB]
Case Note : Where the conduct5 of eye - witness are doubtful and they are not trustworthy, they cannot be relied upon for convection as the Court does not inspires confidence in relying their version.
Case No : CRA/373/2016
Date of Judgement : 01.09.2025
|
5 |
Nandkeshwar VS State Of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:44200-DB]
Case Note : For applying provisions of the C.G. Tohni pratadna Act. 2006 the since qua non is to establish the same through cogent evidence.
Case No : CRA/1390/2015
Date of Judgement : 01.09.2025
|
6 |
SAROJ KSHEMANIDHI (V.I.H. CANDIDATE) VS CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RAIPUR
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:43888-DB]
Case Note : Under Section 34 of the Rights of person with Disabilities Act, 2016 the State is empowered to interchange vacancies among the five categories
of specified disabilities nature of vacancies in an establishment does not permit employment of persons from a particular category,; therefore, the reservation extended to candidates belonging to the "One Arm(OA)" and "One Leg (OL)" categories cannot be regarded as illegal.
Case No : WA/586/2025
Date of Judgement : 29.08.2025
|
7 |
RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED, VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:43803-DB]
Case Note : An order of blacklisting should not be issued in ordinary cases of branch of contract because it has severe civil consequences, amounting to " civil death" and commercial exile for the affected party which bars a party from future contracts and damages their reputation blacklisting must be resorted to for egregious cases and not minor violation or bona fide disputes.and must always adhere to principles of proportionality and natural justice.
Case No : WPC/1135/2025
Date of Judgement : 28.08.2025
|
8 |
YOGESH PATEL VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:42783]
Case Note : " Where the matriculation or equivalent certificate is available and authentic, the same shall be treated as the conclusive evidence for determination of the age of the victim/child. In such cases, no other material whether ,medical, documentary. or oral shall be considered for the purpose of age determination and any deviation therefrom would be impermissible in law"
Case No : CRA/29/2022
Date of Judgement : 22.08.2025
|
9 |
GOPAL PRASAD NAIK VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:42807]
Case Note : Recovery of excess payment from employee -Impermissible where excess payment is not on account of misrepresentation, fraud or fault of the employee but due mistake of the employer. Employee cannot be penalised for the fault committed by the employer.
Case No : WPS/1356/2023
Date of Judgement : 22.08.2025
|
10 |
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VS SUKHAM BAI
Case Note : " The academic distinction between 'murder and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the courts. The confusion is caused if court losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections , allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstraction".
Case No : MAC/242/2023
Date of Judgement : 21.08.2025
|