Jharkhand Court July 2001 Judgments
Badri Mahto and ors. Vs. Dwarika Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR262
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 9 together filed partition suit No. 22 of 1992 wherein petitioner No. 3 and opposite parties 1 to 8 were made defendants. Parties to the said suit were the descendants of Chaman Mahto. It was disposed of on 9.3.1999 in terms of compromise and the compromise petition was made part of decree.2. Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 was filed by opposite parties 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and opposite parties 9 to 14 from going upon the suit land, detailed in Schedule B to the plaint and in-terferring with their possession. Plaintiffs claim in the said suit was that there was previous partition, wherein the lands in question were allotted to them and they were enjoying peaceful possession thereon.3. Consequent upon compromise in the aforesaid partition suit a separate petition for compromise on the same terms was prepared and filed in the suit for injunction also.4. After disposal of partition suit No. 22...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Singh and anr. with Hcl Srivastava and anr. Vs. State of B ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1153]; (2002)IIILLJ1069Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Both these cases have been transferred from Patna High Court in terms of the provisions of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Common question having been raised and common order contained in letter dated 10th June, 2000, having been challenged, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. As the matter can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one, as mentioned hereunder. In the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, there is a registered Trade Union, known as 'Bokaro Steel Workers Union' (Union for short). It has its own constitution and by-laws. The election of Office Bearers is held as per the by-laws, with a life of elected Office Bearers for about two years and three months. There appears to be some internal rivalry cropped up since 1989-90, while one or other group claimed to be the validly elected Office Bearers of the U...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Hazi Ali Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2115
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction for giving employment to the rightful owner whose land in question has been acquired and further for an order for removal of respondent No. 4 who allegedly obtained employment in Piparwar Project of respondent-C.C. Ltd. by submitting forged documents.3. Petitioners' case is that he purchased the land pertaining to Khata No. 6 under various plots measuring total area of 3.11 acres from one Smt. Bhulani Devi on 24.10.1994. The said land has been acquired by respondent No. 1 and under the Land Looser Scheme prevailing in C.C. Ltd. He was entitled to compensation as also employment. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 taking advantage of the illiteracy of respondent No. 5 Smt. Bhulani Devi prepared a fake sale deed alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 5 and on the basis of the said sale deed respondent No. 5 made application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Steel Products Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR670
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties and perused lower Court records. M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (in short SAIL) has filed this appeal under Section 39(vi) of theArbitration Act, 1940, against judgment and decree dated 12.6.2000, passed by 1st Subordinate Judge, Bokaro at Chas, in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 10 of 1990, whereby and where under award dated 30.1.1990 given by the sole arbitrator, Dr. N.R. Sircar has been made Rule of Court. Four Blast Furnaces with heart, area of 2000 cubic meters each were in operation at Bokaro Steel Plant for production of hot metal. While producing hot metal, hot molten slag is an inescapable arising, which has to be disposed of in a planned way. For this purpose an area known as Blast Furnace slag dump has been earmarked. Blast Furnace slag contains some quantity of iron scrap, which can be recovered, removed and sold/purchased. The hot molten slag is transported through laddies, Some time in March, 1982, SAIL invited tenders f...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Bansal Vs. Shrawan Kumar Jagnania and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR59
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. In Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 1997, an order under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 was passed, whereby defendant was directed to deposit arrears of rent as well as current and future rent till disposal of the suit. 2. Against the said order, defendant preferred Civil Revision No. 62 of 1998 (R) in this Court, which was dismissed on 28.7.1998. Order passed by trial Court was confirmed and defendant was allowed 15 days' time from the date of order to deposit arrears of rent and trial Court was directed not to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the said amount till final decision in the suit. 3. However, instead of depositing the amount of arrears of rent by 13.8.1998, thedefendant deposited the same on 25.8.1998, i.e. after twelve days delay. 4. The defendant approached this Court for extension of time granted by order dated 25.7.1998 but his prayer was refused as revision application was already disposed of. Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjeet Mali and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BLJR1656
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals have been heard together as they are arisen out of the common judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 461 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. No. 1344 of 1995 under Haidarngar P.S. Case No. 54 of 1995 for an offence under Sections 376/ 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undrgo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years each under the said offence.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim Kaushalaya Kumari lodged a First Information Report alleging therein that she was aged about ten years and on the day of occurrence, she along with her sister-in-law Usha Devi were preparing food in Dhaba of her house and her mother had gone to Daltonganj in order to meet her father. She came out of her house at the door in order to take cow-dung cake and while pickin...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheshwar Paswan and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1653; 2002CriLJ332
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 299/1989, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304, Part-II read with Sections 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Jadu Nandan Das has further been convicted under Section 148, I. P. C. and rest of the appellants have also been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas appellant Ram Bilas Paswan has further been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and the appellants were sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, where appellants have further been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years for the offence under Section 452, I. P. C. The Appellant Jadu Nandan Das has further been sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years under Section 148, Indian Penal Code and t...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshankar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BLJR1662
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It is submitted by Mr. Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the arms licences of the petitioners have been suspended without even giving them any show-cause notice and affording opportunity before issuance of the said order, which is completely in the teeth of the well-settled law in numerous decisions including the one in the case of Jagdamba Singh v. State of Bihar 1995 (1) BUR 883; 1993(2) PUR 107. In support of this, learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that no notice was given and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before the order of suspension was passed.3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The said paragraph of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit wherein there is no denial of the said statement of the petitioners.4. Under such circ...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Jha @ Virendra Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC393
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. This case arises out of a criminal complaint, (C/1 Case No. 353/2001) filed by Mrs. Sarbjit Kaur against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420, 1PC. The petitioner's contention is that in this criminal complaint, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420, IPC and issued process against the petitioner, by summoning the petitioner (through issuance of summon) to appear in the trial Court. Admittedly, the court below has not issued any warrant ofarrest, bailable or non-bailable, against the petitioner. The petitioner has been called to appear in the trial Court only through the issuance of summons. The petitioner's apprehension is that since the cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, 1PC and these being non-bailable offences, as and when the petitioner appears in the Court below, the Court below may refuse to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner is a...
Tag this Judgment!Alakh Narayan Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR69]
ORDERM.Y. Eqahal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.5.1999, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application.2. The petitioner was working as a Chief Cashier in the year 1979 in the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. In 1988 he was promoted to senior Selection Grade. In 1988 the then Principal of the College lodged a written report alleging misappropriation of money by the petitioner. On 26.2.1988 the petitioner was put under suspension. In 1989 the police submitted final form to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the final form and directed to investigate the matter again. However, a charge-sheet was submitted and a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was also i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »