Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR243; 2001CriLJ578
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.8.1998 and order of sentence dated 27.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 2950 of 1996, whereby and where-under, he convicted the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for four years.2. The prosecution case in brief as stated is that on 27.9.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. while the informant was passing through Balika Vidyalaya near Bagan Dhowra with a constable noticed that a person was coming on a bicycle from the side of Kumardhubi Market and he had a Jhola on his bicycle and on seeing them, he started fleeing away but he was chased and caught. On search, four kilograms of ganja was recovered from his jhola but he failed to produce any document in respect of the said ganja. accordingly, seizure list was prep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR297
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, A.C.J. 1. The suit of the plaintiff was based on the ground of default (sic) as contemplated under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 para 3 of the plaint contains a concise statement about the defendant allegedly committing default in payment of rent. It reads as under :-- '3. That, the defendant has duly paid the house rent upto July, 1994 and thereafter the defendant deliberately failed and neglected to pay the house rent in respect of the shop premises to the plaintiff since the month of August, 1994 and onwards inspite of repeated requests and demands.' If there was any doubt about the concise nature of averments regarding the defendant being a defaulter because of his having not paid any rent since August, 1994 para 4 of the plaint went on to aver as under :-- '4. That, the defendant has thus become a defaulter pure and simple in the matter of payment of house rent for more than two months and has thereby re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR418
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, A.C.J. 1. Theonly ground on which the order passed by the learned Court below is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relates to the applicability, ambit and scope of Section 10 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 2. It is urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that because under Section 10 (supra) the Controller alone has power and jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration of an amenity snapped by the landlord, it is not open to a Civil Court to entertain an application for any such purpose and to grant relief to an aggrieved tenant. It is also urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is only after an enquiry and recording of satisfaction with respect to the snapping of the amenity can an order be made for the restoration thereof and since, in the present case, no enquiry has been made, the order passed by the Court below ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR295; 2001CriLJ559
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge. Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1988 by which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Railway Magistrate,Dhanbad, by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 3(a), RPUP Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The brief case of the prosecution as stated that, one Shankar Prasad Barnwal was attempting to carrying iron material on a trekker. The RPF authority went to the spot and one person fled away on a motor-cycle whereas 2-3 persons remained on the spot. The RPF identified the motor-bike driver as Shankar Prasad Barnwal and the petitioner along with other Upendra was caught at the spot. Accordingly, seizure-list in respect of railway iron materials were prepared and the prosecution was launched.3. The witnesses were examined after framing charge and the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR1055
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. One Gulam Murtaza approached Bank of Baroda, branch office at Ramgarh, for financial assistance in his Fireclay business. On 29.1.1993, the Bank sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- to him on execution of necessary documents and on giving security for due repayment of the advance/outstandings to the Bank. Subsequently, on his approach the Bank raised limit of aforesaid cash credit advance to Rs- 30,000/- with effect from 11.6.1974. 2. A Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 30,000/- payable together with interest at the rate of 4-1/2% OBR, minimum 12-1/2% per annum with quarterly rests was executed by him alongwith an Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods. One Durlabhji Kotecha the guarantor, simultaneously executed a letter of continuing personal guarantee for Rs. 30,000/-. 3. Under the aforesaid account Gulam Murtaza availed of the said Cash Credit facilities advances and made certain part payments thereto from time to time. By letter dated 28.2.1977 both lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR242
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, A.C.J. 1. Mr. K.K. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary point with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining an Application for stay of the execution of the decree under challenge in the Revision Petition filed under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. According to him, on a conjoint reading of Sections 13 and 14 of the aforesaid Act, and in the absence of a specific provision in the Act for staying the execution of the decree challenged in a Revision Petition filed under the aforesaid proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 14, this Court has no jurisdiction to either entertain any Application for staying the execution of the decree or to pass order of a stay.2. The argument is iterated only to be rejected for the simple reason and ona plain ground that the proviso to Subsection (8) itself clearly provides that the High Court may, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR54; 2001CriLJ209
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 9.2.1994 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 17 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has been pleased to convict the sole appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been pleased to order that the appellant shall be released on interim bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety of the like amount for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.2. The prosecution case in brief as alleged that on 27.4.1987 at about 9.30 a.m. when Kameshwar Mondal, Basant Kumhar and Jagdish Sharma employees of Kapasara Colliery on the orders of the officers of the Colliery were removing the articles of the old quarter of Bhagat Bhowrah, Madan Yadav having a lathi came there and started assaulting Kameshwar Mondal, who fell down sustaining the injuries. On hulla, other employees rushed to the spot and thereafter the appellant Madan Yadav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR72]
ORDERS.N. Mishra, J.1. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on records, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is that the order of transfer of the Assistant Teachers dated 28th October, 2000 (Annexure-8) by which the order of posting of the petitioner as contained in memo No. 2884 dated 30.6.2000, purported to be cancelled, does not affect the right of the petitioner to continue at the place of posting by order dated 30th June, 2000, as contained in Annexure-1. It is stated that the petitioner is a Headmaster of the Middle School and by the impugned order the transfer purported to be cancelled will not affect the working of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster. It appears from the order as contained in annexure-1 that the petitioner has been working as Headmaster on his transfer in the middle school. Prima facie it appears to me that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR36
ORDER1. Heard Mr. B. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate.2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner's unit is entitled for deferment of the amount of sales tax for a period of 5 years i.e. from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 and further restraining the respondents from insisting upon and/or from realising the amount of sales tax for the aforesaid period of 5 years inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deferment of sales tax under the Industrial Police, 1995. 3. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit and is doing the business of refractories. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered dealer having registration No. RN (S) 149(R) granted under Section 14 of the Bihar Finance Act. The Government of Bihar came up with an. Industrial Policy known as Industrial Policy 1995. The said policy lays down the provision for removing the sicknes...
Tag this Judgment!