Jharkhand Court June 2001 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.
Gouri Shankar Prasad and ors. Vs. Brahmanand Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR2168
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2000 and the decree signed on 21.8.2000 passed by the District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1997 by which the learned District Judge, Palamau allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1997 passed by the Additional Munsif, Garhwa, in Title Suit No. 17/92 49/93.2. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants in brief as stated is that the plaintiffs were in need of money, hence, offered to mortgage their land detailed in Schedule D of the plaint with condition to repurchase the same on consideration of Rs. 36,600/-. The defendant-respondent, namely. Brahmanand Singh and one Dasrath Prasad Keshri became ready to purchase jointly, the land of Schedule D and, accordingly, the plaintiffs executed a registered deed of sale dated 5.2.1986. The respondent and Dasrath Prasad Keshri on the same day also executed a registered deed of agreement and agreed to rec...
Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi Vs. Mahabir Construction Company Ranch ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR2083
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Admittedly, an agreement was executed between Central Coalfields Limited and Mahabir Construction Company on 3.3.1984, relating to earth work and excavation and levelling for railway siding at Danea, for a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- or such other sum as may be arrived at under Clause 9 of the specification relating to payment by items measurements at unit passage. The contractor was already paid Rs. 1,17,640/- and according to Central Coalfields Limited, no balance amount was paid.2. The contractor raised certain claims and disputes, which were referred to the sole arbitrator. Arbitrator gave un-reasoned award dated 10.4.1992 and directed Central Coalfields Limited to pay a sum of 1,93,064.36 paise with interest @ 18% per annum against claim No. 1 and interest @ 12.5% per annum from July, 1984 to January, 1987 against claim No. 2, as also a sum of Rs. 20,000/-against claim No. 3.3. The said award was filed in court to be made rule of Court, to which M/s. Central...
State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Biharilal Padia
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1798
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. In respect of Agreement No. F 2-53 of 1979-80 dated24.5.1979, disputes raised by the contractor were referred to the sole arbitrator, who gave award for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,87,318.75 paise, as principal amount, and Rs. 1,12.391.00 as interest @18% per annum, i.e, total sum of Rs. 2,99,709.75 paise to the contractor. The said award was made Rule of the Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.3.1992, The court below also granted interest pendente lite and future till realisation @ 6% per annum.2. The contractor had made altogether 19 items of claims to the tune of Rs. 4,73,653.99 paise. The aforesaid claims related to refund of security deposits, refund of amount deducted from on account bills, value of moorrum not paid, value of gravel washed away during monsoon in 1991, consolidation of moorrum and stone, broken materials at quarry, labour advance, carriage of stone from Group-II to Group-I, price escalation for labour and materials, estimated pr...
Saroj Kumar Shukla and ors. Vs. Nirmal Chandra Bose @ Nibu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 40 of 1994 for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from receiving payment of rent from the tenants and making any construction over suit land and also for restraining defendant No. 8 from paying rent to defendants 1 to 3. Further, reliefs were sought for setting aside the decree dated 18.12.1993, passed in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992 and for declaring the sale deed dated 28.12.1973 and lease deed dated 19.4.1985 to be void.2. During pendency of the suit, plain-tiffs filed a petition under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for restraining defendants 1 to 3 and 8 from getting the decree dated 18.12.1993 passed in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992, executed and from receiving rent and making any construction.3. By impugned order dated 10.5.1994, trial Court restrained defendant No. 8 from making payment of arrears of rent as well as current monthly rent to defe...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sombari Kui an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC461; 2002ACJ1409; 2001(49)BLJR2177
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This Misc. Appeal is at the instance of the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment dated 18.12.1992 passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Ist Addl. District Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the compensation case in part and the appellant was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal that on 8.2.1988 at about 3.45 p.m. Pachai Hessa (deceased) was returning from Hat Camaharia to his house at village Mata Guru (Jhinkpani). As there was no bus available in the said route and, therefore, the deceased boarded the truck bearing No. BRS 5303 owned by Basant Kumar Agarwal. There were also about 20 other persons boarded on the said truck. The driver of the truck, who was in drunken state started driving rashly and negligently and lost his balance and dashed against a tree, a...
Raju Nayak Alias Surendra Nayak Vs. State
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4600
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.1995 and order of sentence dated 27. 11.1995 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi inST No. 163/1992/73/93whereby and whereunderthe appellant was convicted under Section 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code andthree years under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief as state that in the morning of 25.5.1991 where the informant Chhedi Mistry was sleeping in the terrace of his house the appellant, Raju Nayak came to his house and enticed away his daughter Gayatri Kumari who is aged about 15 years old. When he came down from the terrace, his wife told him that the appellant had enticed away Gayatri Kumari and thereafter they started searching his daughter and they also went to the house of the appel...
Indian Oxygen Limited Vs. the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1396
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Defendant is appellant. Plaintiffs suit for eviction against the defendant from the suit premises detailed in Schedule 'A' to the plaint, under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977; (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short) on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent was decreed on 20.1.1991. 2. Defendant preferred appeal which was allowed in part. Trial Court's finding on default in payment of rent was reversed and it was held that defendant was not a defaulter within the meaning of the Act. However, first appellate Court confirmed trial Court's finding that plaintiff has reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit house for being allotted to its employees. Defendant has, therefore, filed the present Second Appeal. 3. Admittedly, Caiser Bungalows were constructed by appellant for the employees of M/s. Caiser Company, a Contracting Firm of United State of America (U.S.A.) and as ...
Samuel Soren and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2114
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the parents of late Sushanna Soren, for payment of family pension.2. According to the petitioners, their daughter late Sushanna Soren was in ser-vices of Government and died in harness on 20th February, 1996, while working as Teacher in Government Primary School, Lat-bedha, Anchan-Shikaripara. The daughter being unmarried and the parents being de-pendent on her, were provided with gratuity and provisional family pension at the rate of Rs. 634/- per month, but since December, 1998 even the provisional family pension was withheld, in pursuance of the letter dated 24th December, 1998.3. The letter numbering 847 dated 24th December, 1998 seems to have been issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, A.G. Bihar, Patna, to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka giving a reference to the Finance Department's resolution dated 3rd October, 1964, stating that the father, in terms of such resolution is not entitled for family...
Kaushal Kishore Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1702
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. On 13.2.2001, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge. Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, had passed an order granting bail to the petitioner on the basis of certain observations that he had made in that order. Apparently, feeling aggrieved, the informant moved a petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 439. Cr PC for cancellation of bail subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid bail order and vide order, dated 1.5.2001, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge cancelled the bail (as had been earlier granted vide aforesaid order, dated 13.2.2001). It is against the subsequent order, dated 1.5.2001 that the petitioner-accused has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr PC in this Court. 2. I have perused both the orders passed on 13.2.2001 and 1.5.2001. Undoubtedly, it appears that when the application under Section 439(2), Cr PC was filed for cancellation of bail, the Presiding Officer of the learned Court below, who had passed the order on 13.2.2001 had, on transfer, ...
Rishi Cement Company Limited Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1879
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In CWJC Nos. 834. 835 and 838 of 1999(R) the petitioner M/s. Rishi Cement Company Limited has challenged the order dated 5.1.99 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad whereby the claim made by he petitioner for different financial years under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement has been disposed of by not granting full remission in Maximum demand charges and Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges for interruption of power supply on account of failure on the part of the Electricity Board. In CWJC Nos. 1070, 1073 and 1090 of 1999 (R) the petitioner M/s Rollwell Enterprises has challenged the order dated 14.1.99 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi whereby he has rejected the similar claim made by the petitioner under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for different financial years. By the said order he has refused to grant full proportionate remission in...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »