Latest news with #ChhattisgarhHighCourt
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Tata-govt body bank guarantee case: HC refuses to intervene
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Tata Projects Limited, which sought restoration of status quo, directing the company to seek remedy before the commercial court. The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state. A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee. Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution. According to court records, CHiPS had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract. Previously, Tata Projects had filed writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee. This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the commercial court. Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The commercial court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the commercial court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order. The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the high court. Senior counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee. Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983. The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects had already approached the commercial court. The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the commercial court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application. The High Court directed the commercial court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The high court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the commercial court to decide independently.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh High Court stays transfer of Vet Officer over ‘violation' of Scheduled Area posting guidelines; committee told to decide in 15 days
Chhattisgarh High Court stays transfer of Vet Officer over 'violation' of Scheduled Area posting guidelines; committee told to decide in 15 days RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has stayed the transfer order of a deputy director of veterinary services, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, who challenged his posting to a scheduled area. The 63 year-old petitioner, through his counsel Mateen Siddiqui, contended that his transfer to Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur district is contrary to the state government's guidelines for postings in such areas. The Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, 'It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner who has discharged maximum part of his duty in the scheduled area. Presently, he has been again transferred to a scheduled area which appears to be contrary to the guidelines dated 03.06.2015, hence the petitioner is directed to approach the committee constituted by the State Government on 03.03.2025 within a period of 5 days and in case the petitioner approached the said committee, the said committee shall consider the representation and grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 within a further period of 15 days. Till the decision of the Committee the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 shall remain stayed till the decision of the Committee.' The petitioner, who has served a significant part of his tenure in scheduled areas, argued that the transfer order dated 5 March 2025 violates the guidelines issued on 3 June 2015. The court directed the petitioner to approach a committee constituted by the State Government on 3 March 2025. This committee is tasked with reviewing transfer orders and addressing grievances. The court has instructed the committee to consider Dr. Ahmad's representation and grievance in accordance with the law and the 3 June 2015 guidelines, within 15 days. The High Court has stayed the transfer order until the committee reaches a decision. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Not in line with rationalisation': Interim stay on transfer of one govt school teacher by HC
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court granted an interim stay on the transfer order of a govt primary school teacher. The court directed the authorities to decide on the teacher's representation within seven days. This comes at a time when protests against the state govt's rationalisation policy are ongoing and several teachers have also moved HC against rationalisation orders, There will be a separate hearing for the other petitions. The petition was filed against the transfer order dated 2 June 2025, which moved the petitioner from Government Abhyas Primary School, Mahasamund, to Government Primary School, Fooljhar, in Bagbahara block. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer order was not in line with the rationalisation transfer policy and should therefore be set aside. The counsel also stated that the petitioner filed a representation with the competent authority, which was not yet considered. The court was urged to direct the authority to decide the representation within a specific timeframe. State counsel informed the court that the petitioner's representation would be considered and decided in accordance with the law within seven days. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unglaublich: Der Rechner zeigt sofort den Wert Ihres Hauses an [schauen Sie sich das an] Hauswert Undo After hearing both sides, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation by 10 June 2025, if it was not already decided. Until then, the transfer order of 2 June 2025 will remain in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation and direction to the authorities. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
New Indian Express
03-06-2025
- General
- New Indian Express
Allahabad HC declares arrest of two accused in Chhattisgarh liquor scam as 'illegal'
Almost 11 months later, on June 18, 2024, Dhebar, who had been granted bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court, was again arrested by UP police just 20 minutes after his release in Raipur. Following the arrest, the Investigation Officer (IO) applied for a transit remand under Section 167 of CrPC before the magistrate at Raipur and it was granted for 48 hours. Subsequently, Dhebar was produced before the special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) of Meerut, who remanded him to judicial custody until July 1, 2024. Finally, Dhebar moved Allahabad High Court and his plea was clubbed with the petition filed by the other accused ex-IAS officer Anil Tuteja who was arrested separately in the connection with the same case. As both the petitions sought the court to declare their arrest illegal, they were heard together by the court. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the state submitted that since there was a memo of arrest and the son of the petitioner Dhebar had been informed about the arrest, the arrest could not be held illegal as the reason for it was known to the petitioner. The bench however was not satisfied with the Additional Advocate General's contention, and it stated that neither in the memos of arrest nor in the information given to Dhebar's son or in the remand orders were given the ground of arrest communicated to the petitioners. Furthermore, the court also observed that the petitioners were given no opportunity of hearing to oppose the custodial remand. The court concluded that the petitioners were never furnished the grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50 of CrPC. Declaring their arrests illegal, the court refused to interfere with the charge-sheet submitted by the investigation officer. The Court, however, clarified that the proceedings following law as per the charge-sheet may continue in the case.
News18
02-06-2025
- Business
- News18
Section 27 Of Hindu Marriage Act Not Meant For Standalone Streedhan Claims: Allahabad HC
Last Updated: The division bench was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the family court's order directing him to pay Rs 10,54,364 to his former wife in lieu of streedhan articles. The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a family court order that directed a man to pay over Rs 10 lakh to his ex-wife as compensation for her 'streedhan,' holding that such a claim cannot be independently made by way of an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The division bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Avnish Saxena was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the family court's March 2022 order directing him to pay Rs 10,54,364 to his former wife in lieu of streedhan articles. The high court found the order legally unsustainable as it was based on an independent application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows courts to make provisions regarding joint property presented at or around the time of marriage within a decree passed in matrimonial proceedings. However, in this case, the high court noted that the streedhan order was passed separately and not incorporated into the decree dissolving the marriage on May 1, 2023. Court referred to a 2017 judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Babita @ Gayatri v. Mod Prasad @ Pintu), which clarified that Section 27 cannot be invoked through a standalone application. 'The provision has been made with an intent to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to entitle the wife to move application for return of Streedhan properties in the same proceedings, in which a matrimonial dispute has been brought to the Court for adjudication," the Chhattisgarh High Court had noted. The Allahabad High Court agreed with this view that Section 27 has not been considered to be a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding so as to entitle the court to entertain such independent application. It also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam (1997) where it was said that Section 27 provides alternative remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property, which is covered by the Section. 'Accordingly, we hold, return of ' streedhan ' has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27," the high court opined. Regarding the present case, the bench questioned the family court's reliance on photocopied jewellery receipts submitted by the ex-wife. There was no explanation as to why the secondary evidence was accepted, nor any direct proof that the man had custody of the jewellery in question. Furthermore, court noted that the ex-wife had admitted during cross-examination that the man was in Bombay at the time of the alleged incident in 2014, when she claimed he forcibly took her jewellery and threw her out of the house. The high court also addressed the financial aspect of the case. The man had already paid Rs 7 lakh and the ex-wife had also recovered Rs 2.1 lakh via partial execution of the earlier order. The bench ruled that these payments may be adjusted against any valid maintenance claim under a 2017 CrPC order, but could not sustain the streedhan decree. While dismissing the ex-wife's arguments that the appeal should be barred due to an unsuccessful review attempt and lack of challenge to execution proceedings, the high court emphasized that appeals are a statutory right. Since the impugned order was without jurisdiction, the execution based on it must also be dropped, it ordered. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the family court judgment was quashed. The high court clarified that any future recovery must adhere strictly to the statutory framework. First Published: June 02, 2025, 15:43 IST
