Q) c^ < ~(^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR .CHHATTISGARH CFVIL REVISION N0.- ^ / 2__ OF 2004 PETITIONER ,/ t RESPONDENTS - w /Nishar Ahmed @ Pappu aged atlout 32 years, S/o Late Mohammed Rashid, R/o - Near Shiv Mandir, Nehru Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G) VERSUS ,1. Shatrughan Yadav, aged about|25 years, S/o Vishnuram Yadav, R/6 - Near Gotwa Talab, Sbanti Para, BUjlai- 3,Tehsiland District-Durg (C;G.) 2. Jitendra Shah, S/o CNot mention in order-sheet), R/o - UG-43, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur,Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil and District - Raiipur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company / Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional OfiSce, Madma Buildmg, Kuchery Chowk, Medical Colljege Road, Raipur, Tehsil and District- Raipur(C.G) i MEMO OF CFVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 ^'/ v/.^ / ^- /^y •"'<3<'A',- •'^' /^/ CIVDL PROCEDURE GODE 11 v XI-HC-22 3^'^raraq', o^lo'is, fafctltiiji 311^1 Maeb Iti HWvil shWch '""—•—•.•"...pq. [ ^QQ @ sn^T^ir f^iNian^r i^Hf?cT shtirfiB Sf 1^1 ^•WIW;nf?(T 'hioffl^ til^rlT^'r^ {KtW< %3fRrtr3n^T 24/03/2005 Shri Shivendu Pandya, cour Heard. The applicant has preferrei|J order dated 16/Q9/2004 by which tt^ amount deposited in the name of Tribunal has been rejected. The case of the applicant in favour ofthe applfcant by the Lo| Rs. 75,000/- was given to the appe was directed to be deposited in tt years. An application was filed by| applicant is entitled to obtain 75 °/<| therefore, a prayer was made that| of Rs. 1,50,QOO/- against the fixed | the Claims Tribunal by the impugr|( income tax payee. Learned oounsel for the required by the applicant for the amount disbureed to him by the business because of the injury sus sorap business. 1 have heard leamed counl applicant 'is permltted to take a account. Withthe aforesaid directioit, selfor the appljcant. this revision petition against the impugned ^|e applioation for loan against the fixed deposit flie appllcant as per instructions of the Claims ^ that an award of Rs. 3,00, OOO/- was passed |< Adalat in mutual compromise and the sum of [llant in oash. However, the remaining amount |e fixed deposit account for a period of three |the applicant that as per the bank rules, the of loan against the fixed deposjt amount and |the applicart should be permitted to take loan Ideposit amourrt but the same was rejected by |ed order on the ground that the applicant isa artplicant submits that the amount in question is pi^rpose of business as he had already spent the "ribunal and he is not able to undertake any tained by him and he wants to re-establish his sum el for the applicant and it is directed that the of Rs. 75,000/- from the fixed deposit of his the revision is disposed of. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge