National emblem

High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Latest 10 AFR Judgements with Case Note

1
SMT. PADMAVATI SAHU VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:16919-DB]
Case Note : There is a presumption in favour of constitutionly or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden in upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid.
Case No : WPS/803/2022
Date of Judgement : 09.05.2024
2
KHILENDRA CHAUHAN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:16124-DB]
Case Note : A writ of habeas corpus is to be issued as matter of coursed and clear grounds must be made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Case No : WPHC/6/2024
Date of Judgement : 03.05.2024
3
Alexius Minj (Died) Through Lrs. VS State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15846]
Case Note : When statute provide harsh mejeure which if implemented may result into financial death of employee then word 'may' used in statute should be read as 'shall' as invocation of such power may have devastating effect on service career of employee. In absence of order joint enquiry passed under rule 18 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification , control and Appeal) Rrules 1996 by competent authority the joint Enquiry against the delinquent employee will get vitiated.
Case No : WPS/821/2014
Date of Judgement : 02.05.2024
4
UMEND JAISWAL VS SMT. DURGESHWARI JAISWAL
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15474-DB]
Case Note : Better financial resources of either of the parents of their love for the child may be one of the relevant consideration but cannot be the sole determining factor for the custody of the child.
Case No : FA(MAT)/4/2023
Date of Judgement : 01.05.2024
5
SMT. KARUNA SAO VS MANENDRA KUMAR SAHU
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15475-DB]
Case Note : The service of noticed is not mere formality and it should be real and meaningful so that the other party may be represented appropriately before the court.
Case No : FA(MAT)/18/2023
Date of Judgement : 01.05.2024
6
ABDUL HAMEED SIDDIQUI VS KAVITA GUPTA
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15182-DB]
Case Note : Live in relationship which is followed in certain sect of the society still continues as a stigma in the Indian culture as live in relationship is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian Tenets.

The provisions of personal law cannot be invoked before any court of law until and unless the same is pleaded and proved as custom.

It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live in relationship and in such case the court cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live in relationship and children born out of such relationship.

1) Live in relationship which is followed in certain sect of the society still continues as a stigma in the Indian culture as live in relationship is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian Tenets. 2) The provisions of personal law cannot be invoked before any court of law until and unless the same is pleaded and proved as custom. 3 )It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live in relationship and in such case the court cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live in relationship and children born out of such relationship.
Case No : FA(MAT)/27/2024
Date of Judgement : 30.04.2024
7
Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal VS Deleted (Shri Dinesh Bhimnani)
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:16329-DB]
Case Note : The entries in revenue record does not confer any title of the person. Adverse inference can be drawn if any party in possession of best evidence, which trows light on issue, is withholding it to be produced in the court.
Case No : FA/31/2017
Date of Judgement : 29.04.2024
8
M/S. M. AHUJA PROJECTS (1) (P) LTD., VS GREEN GLORY RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY,
Judge : Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:14983-DB]
Case Note : Completion certificate by local Authority without any Participation of beneficary cannot be meant to curtail the promise made by the promoter in brochure. The principal of puposive is supposed to attach the meaning to understanding that court is supposed to attach the meaning to the provision which serves the 'purpose' behind sch provision.
Case No : MA/21/2024
Date of Judgement : 29.04.2024
9
RAJKUMAR TAMBOLI VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15072-DB]
Case Note : The revenue officer / Tahsildar is entitled for protection for passing an order in capacity of Revenue Court by provisions contained in Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

The revenue officer / Tahsildar is entitled for protection for passing an order in capacity of Revenue Court by provisions contained in Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
Case No : CRMP/1461/2023
Date of Judgement : 29.04.2024
10
NIKHIL CHAUDHARY VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation : [2024:CGHC:15085-DB]
Case Note : If a mortgaged property is sold by the Bank for repayment of the loan and later if it is revealed that the said property is disputed one, the authority sanctioning the loan cannot be held guilty as he is protected under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act.

If a mortgaged property is sold by by the Bank for repayment of the loan and later if it is revealed that the said property is disputed one the authority sanctioning the loan cannot be held guilty as he protected under section 32 of the SARFAESI Act.
Case No : CRMP/2256/2018
Date of Judgement : 29.04.2024