✦ Chhattisgarh High Court

Judgment · High Court

SL No. 4982 of 2005N K AGARWAL, LATE SHRI

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Smt. Sumitra Sinha, W/o Late J.P. sinha, age 60 yrs. Wife Opp. House of N.C. Jha, Shantinagar, Ameri Road,

7.

P/o Mangla, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Abha Shrivastava W/o Shri Anumpam Shrivastava, aged 41 years, daughter, New 'Anugrah', R/o Shantinagar, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Vibha Shrivastava, W/o Shri Shiv Shrivastava, aged 39 years, daguther, R/o Flat No. 408, Saket Apartment, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Subha Shrivastava W/o Late Shri Shashank Shrivastava, 37 daughter. R/o Plot No. years, 21, Shantinagar, Ameri Road, P/o Mangla, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Varsha Verma W/o Shri Sujeet Verma, aged 35 years, daughter, R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Deepmalini Shrivastava W/o Shri Shyam Shrivastava, aged 33 years, daughter, R/o Shrivastava Sadan, Kachchari Road, Durg (C.G.) Ku. Sonali Sinha, D/o Late J.P. Sinhna, aged 30 years, duaghter R/o Opp. House of N.C. Jha Araeri Road, P/o Mangla, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Appellants .^<:y*?'\f, ^. .. s»y.ASff^ 6?

8.

Ku. Monalisa Sinha, D/o Late Shri J.P. Sinha, aged 28 years, daughter R/o Opp. House ofN.C. JhaAmeri Road, P/ O Mangla, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants. Ta^nqSt

1.

^~ysf ^Ricf ~^vEf I^TSTT ^ 1^1 y^n<H^<i ?TRT'T, ^Tqy

2.

aii-^cw ^vSf I^TSTT, ferpT *1^|[^^lld^ ^rf^R YPT^ C^.'IT.)

3.

yMi4 ^ll^<pl<< ^Slf^eilcl^. TT®ri^TT 1^raT—(^di<i^(^.'T.)

4.

yi^ii4 ?TT.i?'T4.1^- ^^l^^ld-y vRT^ ^FR (^.'IT.) arar^ CtCpc)|U| 31|c|c;d TT5T 31cd<>[d ETTCT 1 9 3T&A|y^?T ^ICTAI TTSTTSrf^Tcf? 3Tf^|cD^u| 1985 f' sO '??J -5-5? ...fc.3..f..CD......-....a...l^^ ^ '^^H^rit^? ?' S-B: Hoa'ble Mr. Justice N K. A^^rwaS

03.12.2013 Mr. B.K. Chakraborty, Mr. A.V. Sridhar, Panel! Leamed counsel for ofthis Court to withdraw tliil representatiou before tiie Pemiissiou granted. Accordiagly fhe writ wifhdrawn with the albresaid tlie petitioner. No order as toj ^ounsel for fhe petitioner. Law^'er for fhe State. petitioner seeks pennission petition witJi Ubert}^ to file a coi^petent auttioriU'. petitlon is dismissed, as Mberty graiited in favour of costs. Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge ^ll^^^^^»^,^ram^m?h-FS/48^8/201Z-^^ \

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. SL No. 4982 of 2005). ← Search more judgments