Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Chattisgarh High Court

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, ... vs Manoj Kumar 53 Crmp/2271/2018 State Of ... on 4 January, 2019

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                                                            NAFR
                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                       Writ Appeal No. 818 of 2018


             1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, (Cmd) South Eastern Coalfields Limited
                (Wrongly Mentioned As Chief Managing Director) (CMD) South Eastern
                Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
             2. The District (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
                Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
             3. The Deputy Manager (Personnel) Bagdeva Project (Korba Area), P.O. Katghora,
                District- Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ---- Appellant
                                                   Versus
             • Manoj Kumar S/o Het Ram Aged About 47 Years Presently Working At Bagdeva
               Coal Mines As B C M , R/o Q. No. A - 517 , Bakimogra District Korba
               Chhattisgarh
                                                                                  ---- Respondent

_____________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 04.01.2019

1. A direction was issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.04.2018 on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the private Respondent i.e. the Petitioner before the writ Court to file a representation and for the Appellants to consider the same.

2. The Court is informed that all facts were not truthfully stated before the learned Single Judge and the Appellant-Company did not get proper opportunity to file their return and bring the facts to the notice of the Court.

3. If there is suppression or misrepresentation, all that can be taken into consideration in passing of a speaking order by the Appellant-Company in 2 relation to the direction. There is no occasion, therefore, to interfere with the said order in appeal. Let the Company still do the same within a period of two weeks.

4. The appeal stands disposed off with the above observation.

                      Sd/-                                                  Sd/-
               (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)                              (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                   Chief Justice                                          Judge


Chandra