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.
Bishwa Ranjan Das Vs. Malkiyat Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC500
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the sole appellant, challenging the judgment and award, dated 15.3.1993 passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi inCompensation Case No. 84 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned claims tribunal allowed the compensation to be paid to the claimant/appellant of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) inclusive interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to the claimant/appellant with six per cent interest per annum from the date of application.2. Claimant is the father of deceased Baijnath Das, who was Service Technician of Konark TV Limited and was posted at Kamdhenu Electronics. Ranch). It is further claimed that on 17.3.1989 he has gone to Ramgarh to attend some work. While he was returning on his own motorcycle on 18.3.1989 and reached near Booty More on national highway, the truck bearing registration No. UHL 9054 dashed against his motorcycle, as a resul...
Kiran Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-12-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1988
ORDER1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned since the cause shown is sufficient. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration and final disposal today itself. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 4397/ 2000 only to the extent, in so far as learned Single Judge has not issued any direction upon respondents to pay interest to the appellant on her claim of Rs. 3 lacs against the respondents. 3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the husband of the appellant was insured with the respondent-company for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the husband of the appellant was murdered and thereupon the claim was lodged by the appellant for receipt of the insured sum. It is not the case of the respon-dent-Insurance Company that the appellant was guilty or negligent of lodging the claim eve...
Rana Subodh Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR73]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct sub-group of writ petition as W.R (S) with new No. 2309 of 2001.2. The office, particularly Computer Section is directed to correct the same.3. The petitioner was in the services of the State and retired from the post of Accountant, Animal Husbandry Department. While he was in the services, the petitioner was suspended on 4.2.1996 and continued under suspension till he retired on 30.4.1998. He was paid subsistence allowance during the aforesaid period in the old scale of pay and after superannuation he received full payment of G.P.F., Group Insurance but 90%of the pension, gratuity and leave encashment amount.4. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has prayed for direction on the respondents to pay salary of the period of suspension alter adjusting the subsistence allowance in the revised scale as was allowed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and finalisation of pension gratuity and leave encashment taking into consid...
Yashpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BLJR2071
Chy. S.N. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, in this revision application, has challenged the order dated 13-6-2000, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby, the learned trial Court has rejected the application, Tiled by the petitioner under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for passing an order of acquittal, in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the order mainly on the ground that the moment a petition under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the trial Court is bound to pass an order of acquittal, if there is no evidence available on the record. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1978 Cr. L.J. 1168. Before I consider the submission of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to mention some relevant facts. Admitted position in this case is that there are altogether...
Dasrath Sao and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4336; II(2001)DMC540
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20-9-1995 and order of sentence dated 22-9-1995 passed by Shri Kumar Ganesh Dutt, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The appellants were further convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. However, the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.2. The prosecution case in brief as stated is that on 7-1-1991, a first information report was lodged on the basis of the written in...
Suresh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4154
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 193/1992, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges framed under Section 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case in brief as stated that on 20-7-1989 at about 4 p.m. there was some not exchange of word between the petitioner and O. p. No. 2 over the question of removal of creeper which spread up to Balcony of the petitioner where the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 are the resident of the same building. When the opposite party No. 2 could not remove the creeper, there was exchange of abuse and in the meantime the petitioner's son Kumud came down and asked the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 as to why such thing happened and the creeper has not been removed. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2, Bindeshwar Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh along ...
Onkar Saran Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR283]
ORDERS.N. Mishra, J.1. Heard learned counselfor the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board. Inthis writ application, the petitioner hasprayed for quashing of the order dated20.11.1998, whereby, he has been dismissedfrom the service by the respondent BiharState Electricity Board and also for quashingof the order dated 15.6.1999, whereby, therespondent-Chairman. Bihar State ElectricityBoard, has dismissed the appeal, filed by thepetitioner and thereby, confirmed the order ofdismissal, passed by the respondentauthority. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for negligence of his duties and misappropriation of the Board's amount. In the departmental proceeding, both oral as well as documentary evidence were adduced and the respondent enquiry officer by a reasoned order found the petitioner not guilty and, accordingly, submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after issuing show cause notice, pass...
Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Sarita Kumari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ164
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Claimants of Compensation Case No. 91 of 1988, filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount fixed by 6th Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, by the impugned judgment and award.2. Admittedly, on 26.6.1988, Sriniwas Singh was going on a jeep (BEP 7778) in a barat party, which was dashed by a bus (BEZ 2616), coming from opposite direction. As a result of the said accident, he received grievous head injuries and died on the same day in hospital.3. It was established that accident took place for the fault of the bus driver. The deceased was 37'/2 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month.4. In my opinion, 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses, in absence of any definite evidence in this regard, was required to be deducted for the purpose of calculating annual dependency. Hence, annual dependency comes to R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›