THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, vs RAKESH CHATURVEDI Advocate - R.S.PATEL — REVP/101/2026
Next hearing: : -.
CNR: CGHC010077722026
Filing Number
REVP/4466/2026
Filing Date
20-Feb-2026
Registration No
REVP/101/2026
Registration Date
07-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )
Sub-Category
REVIEW PETITON ( 1736 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Adv. Animesh Tiwari,Yogendra Pandey,Yogendra Pandey, ,ARPIT PARAKH,Yogendra Pandey
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAKESH CHATURVEDI Advocate - R.S.PATEL
-
2.Smt. Manorama Jagtap
-
3.Smt. Sonarin Bai Yadav,
-
4.Khilawan Prasad Tiwari
-
5.State of Chhattisgarh
Adv. A.G.
-
6.The Driector,
-
7.The Collector,
-
8.The Deputy Director,
-
9.The Chief Executive Officer
-
10.The Chief Executive Officer,
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF
Case Summary: In REVP No. 101/2026 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, the petition filed by the Chief Executive Officer against Rakesh Chaturvedi and others was heard on 04.05.2026. The court issued notices to all respondents—the State accepted notice without requiring process fees, while other respondents (Nos. 1-4, 8-10) were served through ordinary and speed post modes. The case was adjourned for listing after receipt of the service report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
-
20-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. REVP/101/2026
Case Summary: In REVP No. 101/2026 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, the petition filed by the Chief Executive Officer against Rakesh Chaturvedi and others was heard on 04.05.2026. The court issued notices to all respondents—the State accepted notice without requiring process fees, while other respondents (Nos. 1-4, 8-10) were served through ordinary and speed post modes. The case was adjourned for listing after receipt of the service report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts