Circular No. 17913(Judicial) Bilaspur, dated 03rd September 2025.
Regarding constitution of benches for National Lok Adalat on 13/09/2025.
Endt No. 17685 Bilaspur, dated 01st Setember 2025.(Regarding allotment of H-type government residential house of High Court Colony,Sector -2, Bodari)
Endt No. 3966/HCLSC/PANEL/2025 Bilaspur, dated 29th August 2025.(Regarding panel lawyers of High Court Legal Services Committee, Bilaspur for Retainer Lawyers.)
Notification No. 287 Bilaspur, dated 30th August 2025.
Notification No. 286 Bilaspur, dated 30th August 2025.
Endt No. 17563 Bilaspur, dated 29th August 2025.
Endt No. 1063/Confdl./2025 Bilaspur, dated 29th August 2025.
Endt No. 17335/Rules/2025 Bilaspur, dated 26th August 2025.
Notification No. 17126/Checker Bilaspur, dated 23rd August 2025.
Notification No. 17124/Checker Bilaspur, dated 23rd August 2025.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Circular No. 17327 Bilaspur, dated 23rd October 2024.
Circular No. 181 Bilaspur, dated 17th October 2024.
Circular No. 123/D.E. Bilaspur, dated 17th October 2024.
Order No 135 Bilaspur, dated 21th August 2024.
Circular No. 609/confdl./2024 Bilaspur,dated 24rd June 2024.
Where the conduct of eye-witnesses are doubtful and they are not trustworthy, they cannot be relied upon for conviction as the Court does not inspires confidence in relying their version.
The credibility of an interested witness, such as a family member, cannot be discarded merely on account of their relationship. However, their testimony must be scrutinized with great care and
caution. If found to be untrustworthy, it cannot be
relied upon.
An order of blacklisting should not be issued in ordinary cases of breach
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 for minor violations or bona fide
disputes, and must always adhere to principles of proportionality and
natural justice.
Under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016, the State is empowered to interchange vacancies among the
five categories of specified disabilities if the 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.
Recovery of excess payment from employee — Impermissible
where excess payment is not on account of misrepresentation, fraud, or
fault of the employee but due to mistake of the employer. Employee
cannot be penalised for the fault committed by the employer.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Benevolent legislation — Just
compensation — Non-filing of cross-objection or cross-appeal by the
claimant will not preclude the Court from awarding just and reasonable
compensation. The duty of the Court is to ensure award of just
compensation irrespective of procedural technicalities.
A teacher holds a position of trust and responsibility. Any sexual,
abusive, or exploitative act with a minor student is not just professional
misconduct, but a grave criminal offence punishable under the POCSO
Act, as it amounts to child exploitation and invites strict punishment.
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.
“In a Public Interest Litigation, when the petitioner is
himself a party to disputes concerning the subject matter, and
the same issue is already seized by the Court in another PIL
including suo motu cognizance, the subsequent petition cannot
be regarded as a bona fide public cause. Such a petition,
being tainted with personal motive and vendetta, is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.”
“The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable
homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the courts. The
confusion is caused if courts 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 abstractions.”
When an accused faces charges under special statutes for offences
against the State, the grant of bail is ordinarily discouraged. Courts
are obliged to exercise exceptional caution and a rigorous approach,
weighing the seriousness of the allegations, the protection of State
interests, and the statutory limitations on bail prescribed by the
relevant special laws.