Jharkhand Ranchi Court April 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.
Arjun Prasad SinhA. Vs. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and o ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed for seeking relief(s) that the petitioner should be granted in the next higher grade of post i.e. Senior Chemist Grade-I (W) under stagnation scheme at par with junior counter parts alongwith all consequential benefit.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide this matter as the matter pertains between the petitioner and the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited. 3. In this matter other alternative efficacious remedies are available before the Industrial Tribunal and as such, the petition is not maintainable in this Court. From perusal of record it appears that the petition has not been admitted so far and the matter relates to the adjudication of the disputed facts in which this Court cannot enter into.4. Apart from that, the petitioner has other efficacious alternative remedy available under the Industrial Tribunal Act so he can approach bef...
Bhuneshwar Yadav. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner, Bhuneshwar Yadav is moved by Sri Kailash Prasad Deo learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Ravi Prakash learned Additional P.P. Only allegation against petitioner is that he retained job card and pass book of some labourers working under the concerned scheme. 2. Aforesaid allegation supported by labourers at paragraph no. 72 and 73, where they have said that petitioner retained their job cards and pass book, but they were getting their wages regularly. 3. There is no allegation that they have been paid less wages. Under the aforesaid circumstance, at best an offence under Section 25 of the MNREGA is made out in which punishment is of fine.4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioner, above named, to surrender in the court below on or before 29th of April 2011.5. If petitioner surrenders by that time, the learned Court below is directed to enlarge him on bail o...
Kailash Devi. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did purchase a piece of land measuring 1 decimal which was never agricultural land, rather it was a homestead land, still an application was filed by the respondent no.5 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 claiming himself to be an adjoining raiyat before the Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.2. That application was allowed and therefore, the petitioner had to prefer an appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh who did find that the land in dispute is not an agricultural land, still the appeal was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved with that order, a revision was preferred before the Member, Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by holding that the application is barred by time and at the same time it was held that the application is not maintainable on account of non-joiner of the necessary party and hence, this wr...
Bhikhan Naiyak and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This matter was referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25/08/2010 to decide whether an order passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C., attaching a property and appointment of receiver is an interlocutory order or not?.2. It appears that the impugned order was passed under Section 146 (1) Cr. P.C., far back on 20th June 2009 as an interim measure on the ground that there existed emergent situation. It further appears that the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court on 18/08/2009 in this case.3. When we indicated that the proper remedy for the opposite parties is by way of civil suit, Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel, on instructions from Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 will file a suit, seeking appropriate reliefs and raising all the points available to them, as may be advised. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has got no objection to it.4. In...
Balram Kumar Sahu. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Balram Kumar Sahu is moved by Sri. Rajiva Sharma, Sr. Advocate and opposed by Sri. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned Additional P.P. and Sri. Sanat Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband and he undertakes that he will keep the complainant as his wife with all respect and dignity.2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that if petitioner give the aforesaid undertaking, then the complainant have no objection in residing with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submissions raised by the parties, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below positively on 29.04.2011. 3. On that date the complainant is also directed to remain present in the court below and in that event, the court below will grant bail to the petitioner, above named, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount...
Janardan Saw. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the case registered under Sections 467/468/471/420/414/120(B)/34 IPC and Section 21 of the Mines Minerals Regulation and Development Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he is the driver of the truck; the coal was loaded with valid papers; the allegation is that the coal was to be transported to Kolkata, but it was intercepted and found on a different route; however, there are no allegations that the coal was stolen and the papers were forged; the petitioner has no concern with the coal; the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent; the petitioner is in custody since January 2011 without any cogent basis; the petitioner is a local permanent resident and there is no chance of his absconding.3. Learned A.P.P opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that the coal was to be transported to Kolkata, but the route was diverted for illegal purpose.4. Ho...
Manoj Sao @ Manoj Sahu and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1 . Both the anticipatory bail applications arose from the same, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. Heard Sri Jaiprakash for the petitioners and Ms. M. Palit , learned Additional P.P. for the State.2. Investigating Officer is present in court in compliance of order dated 18.4.2011. On query, after going through the case diary, Investigating Officer was not able to produce any evidence to show that the rice seized from the tempo of petitioner Manoj Sao @ Manoj Sahu loaded from fair price shop of petitioner Deoki Ram.3. It appears that Investigating Officer sent a report to C.J.M., Chatra stating that investigation reveals that the occurrence is true but he has not been able to show the basis on which he gave that report. Till now Investigating Officer is not able to establish that the rice seized in this case was allotted to fair price of petitioner Deoki Ram. I.O. has also not made any enquiry or investigation on the claim of Bimal Sao, who filed an application for ...
Sudhir Sahi @ Sudhir Sahy. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. It appears that earlier on two occasions, bail prayer of petitioner rejected. On the last occasion i.e. on 16.12.2010, on the submission of learned counsel for informant that the case will be disposed of very soon, the court below was directed to dispose of the case within three months as the petitioner was in custody from 17.12.2009.2. It is needless to say that in the instant case, charge framed under section 307 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by Sri M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the informant that up till now altogether 15 witnesses already examined by the prosecution but still some witnesses remained to be examined but in the mean time, the court became vacant, thus no further witnesses examined. 3. He submits that there is delay in disposal of the case because one of the co-accused became absconder and the case was running for appearance. However, it appears that on several dates no witnesses produced by prosecution and most of the time prosecution seek a...
Sanjeev Kumar Jha And Ors. Vs. Swami Ram Krishna Paramhans Teacher's T ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. Through this review application, the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2010 in W.P.(C) 4976 of 2010 directing the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to allow the students of the College to take B.Ed examination for the Session 2009-10 which was to be commenced from 6th December, 2010 by accepting forms and fees etc. has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the College, namely, Swami Ram Krishna Paramhans Teacher's Training (B.Ed) College, Karmatand, Bokaro has never been given affiliation by the University for the Session 2009-10 but statement was made before this Court that the said College is affiliated College and on such assumption, the order was passed and, therefore, the order is fit to be reviewed, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in a case of N.M.Nageshwaramma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [1986 (Supp) SCC 166] holding therein that students of unaffiliated College cannot be allowed to take examination.2. Mr.Sameer Saurav, learned cou...
Paras Nath Pandey. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Secretary and or ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents be directed to pay the security amount after deducting Rs. 45,759/- against the agreement No. F2-34/2004-05 as the works was completed successfully in the year 2004-05. He further submitted that the earnest money should also be returned.2. On the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted as follows. The petitioner has not completed the work as per the agreement. From the order dated 23.9.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 4693 of 2008, (Annexure-1) itself it will appear that petitioner himself said that he is not in a position to execute the work. The petitioner got excess payment.3. A cheque of Rs. 4,80,000/- was issued to him against running on account bill by mistake, without deducting taxes, etc. Petitioner moved this court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6386 of 2006 saying that the cheque was returned by the Bank due to mistake in advice number. Acco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »