Jharkhand Ranchi Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Debashish Mohanty and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.96/2010 which was registered on 15.03.10, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.133/2010, by which the petitioners were alleged to have committed offence under Sections 379/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further requested for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings of the petitioners arising out of the said case.2. The complainant filed P.C.R. Case No.133/2010 before the C.J.M., Deoghar narrating, inter alia, that he had purchased Earth Mover J.D. 3155 model of TATA Company with the financial assistance from TATA Motors Finance in the month of July, 2007 and the vehicle was registered vide Registration No. JH 15 D 3504. The complainant further narrated that he had to pay back the dues to the TATA Motors Finance in thirty-six equal installments in three years with the condition that TATA Company would remove technica...
Munu Mahto and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 10.07.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Daltonganj in S.T. No.192A/2006, by which summons was directed to be issued against the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for facing the trial. The petitioners further requested for the quashment of their criminal proceedings in S.T. No.192A/2006.2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant-Rajendra Bhuian in his written report stated that his younger brother Yugal Bhuian (since deceased) had proceeded on 15.09.2005 to participate in Karma Puja Mela at about 4 O'clock in the evening. When he did not return back in the night, the informant became anxious. In the morning of 16.09.2005, he was informed that the dead body of his younger brother Yugal Bhuian was lying in Loinga forest. He went there with the witnesses and other members of ...
Madhusudan Murmu and ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and or ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is that whether the petitioners on being selected are entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission)/Assistant Electrical Engineer (General)/Assistant Engineer (I.T.) in the establishment of the Electricity Board. 2. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the respondents-Electricity Board issued an advertisement bearing No. 01/08 on 20.9.2008 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission) -Code A-1/Assistant Electrical Engineer (General)-Code A-2/Assistant Engineer (I.T.) Code A-3 and Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission) Code A-4. The eligibility, which was prescribed for appointment on the post of Code A-1 and A-2, is that a candidate coming under the general category should have passed examination in Electrical Engineering with 65% marks whereas it was fixed as 60% for the candidates belon...
Arjun Ram. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking following reliefs:-a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of suspension dated 5.10.2006 (annexure-1) as it is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to post the petitioner at the earlier place of posting treating the transfer to be illegal and arbitrary as it is against the provision of law and the rules and in view of the Supreme Court's order and direction passed in the case of Prakash Singh Versus Union of India reported in 2006(8) SCC 1.c) For a direction / order to the respondent no.4 not to proceed with the proposed departmental proceeding as suspension itself is illegal and against the provision of law and without jurisdiction.d) Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are very much entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case and under the eye of law.2. In substance, the peti...
Superwati ChampiA. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order under memo No. 1388 dated 4.6.2007 issued by the District Superintendent of Education ( respondent no.4 ) whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of expiry of the prescribed period for submission of the application. The petitioner has further sought issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner in a class IV post under compassionate appointment scheme.2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was employed as Assistant Teacher in primary school Maranda, Kumardungi Block in the West Singhbhum District under respondent no.4. He died in harness on 29.3.1998. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner, the wife of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment under the respondents. The said application was not ...
Satyandra Rajak. Vs.The State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 11.06.2010 by which the C.J.M., Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 135 of the Electricity Act in Mango P.S. Case No. 334 of 2009 against the petitioner and others and transferred the record to the Court of A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur for disposal.2. The prosecution story in short was that a written report was lodged by the informant Assistant Electrical Engineer, J.S.E.B. on 11.09.2009 stating therein that a raid was conducted by the officials of the Electric Supply Division, Mango and in course of raid conducted in several houses in presence of Executive Magistrate, house of one R.C. Rajak was also raided and it was detected that though there was already electric connection in the house even then, they were using by hooking the power supply line and thereby cause...
Ayushman Pandey. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the SDJM Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 772 of 2010 by which preliminary objection raised on the point of maintainability by the petitioner accused.2. The prosecution story in short as per the complaint petition filed by the complainant-opposite party No.2 on 6.5.2010 in the court of CJM Ranchi under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was that she was a Muslim woman by faith whereas the petitioner Ayushman Pandey was a Brahmin(Hindu) and both solemnized love marriage on 8.12.2008 itself before the Marriage Officer under the Act XLIII of 1954 at Neturis Block, Purulia(West Bengal), to which a certificate of marriage was granted to both spouse .It was alleged that the husband- petitioner started torturing since the very day of marriage over telephone and in person in connivance with his re...
Satlal Mahto. Vs. Rudlal Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application for amendment in the plaint was preferred by the petitioner, who is the original plaintiff and partly the said application was allowed and partly it was rejected. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application was not allowed to be amended and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application are as under: "vi) After paragraph 15, a sub para "15A" be added as follows: That so far as the lands of Khata No. 48 are concern, the father of the defendant has received Compensation amount also awarded in L.R. Case No. 26/83 for acquisition of the land (for BazarSamittee) measuring 1.93 Acres (Khata No. 48) consisting of plot no. 2143, Area 1.75 Acres and plot no. 2145 Acres 0.18 Acre. Hence the lands measuring 1.93 acres should be deducted from the share of the defendants.2. In addition to the above lands, the lands measuring 0.50 acre under Khata No. 48 has been so...
Madhu Sudan Mitta and ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and o ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.This is the stand of the Amicus Curiae that there was a hearing in the Commission, and the approach of the Commission so far had been very charitable to the Board and even the stringent orders passed against the Board had not been followed. Another aspect pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae was that the Board is taking refuse behind the situation that despite special courts created for the purposes of electricity offences, they have not been functioning properly. As against this, learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that under Section 153(4) of the Indian Electricity Act, the proceedings could be disposed of by the District Judge concerned and any other Judicial Officer.2. Therefore, this aspect that the courts have not been functioning is only an eye wash and the Board is not desirous of proceeding in the matter and it is the irony that there are 15,000 F.I.Rs and there are Rs.3,500/- Crores or a like amount due against the consumers, which ...
Awadh Kishore Mistry. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.06.2005 passed in Revenue Misc. Petition No. 62 of 1993/94, by the Commissioner, Dumka (Annexure 6); the order dated 11.8.2010 passed in R.M.A. Case No. 144 of 1988-89 by respondent no. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (Annexure 7) affirming the order dated 06.09.1988 (Annexure 4) passed by the respondent no. 4 Sub- Divisional Officer, Dumka directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment.2. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act ('B.P.L.E. Act' for short) was started against the father of the petitioner being Encroachment Case No. 1 of 1954-55 which was dropped on 17.07.1955 as no encroachment was found. Thereafter one Ainul Haque and another filed suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, claiming the land in question, along with other lands, which was decreed on compromise. On the basis of a pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »