Jharkhand Court November 2002 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.
Khadi Oraon Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR291(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal has been directed by the sole appellant named above against the impugned judgment dated 31.5.1991 passed by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, 7th AJC Ranchi in Sessions Case No. 497 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to underdo R.I. forlife and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in the default thereof R.I. for two months.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of PW 3, Budhram Uraon, the son of Gopi Uraon the deceased of this case recorded by S.I., I.S. Prasad of Chanho P.S. at State Dispensary, Chanho on 29.5.1990 at 00.40 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place at the house of the informant in village Hurhuri, P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi on 28.5.1990 at 7.00 p.m. PWs 1 and 2 are the witness of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) and their signatures thereon are Ext. 1/2 and 1/3 res...
Asha Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR280(Jhr)]
ORDERV.K. Gupta, CJ. 1. In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order/communication dated 27.4.2002 whereby investigation in Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 381/99 dated 9.10.1999 under Sections 376/385 and 120-B, IPC has been taken over by the C.I.D., Jharkhand Police. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Additional Director General, C.I.D., Jharkhand Police. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid order was issued on 27.4.2002 and interim charge-sheet,before that date, had already been filed in terms of Section 173, Cr PC and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazari-bagh had, therefore, already taken cognizance of the case2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, which are slightly interesting, are that the writ petitioner Asha Singh is the younger sister of one Kamini Singh, who in 1981 was married to accused-respondent No. 5 Anil Kumar Singh, who is presently serving...
Bishnu Bhagat Vs. Pushpa Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR364(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner obtained ex parte decree of judicial separation in divorce case No. 9/95 against his wife. The opposite party-wife filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground inter alia that she was posted at Tamar as Supervisor in 'Bal Vikas Pariyojana' and after her transfer from Simdega she could not consult her lawyer. She also made other grounds for no appearing in the Court when the suit was heard ex parte. Learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge after satisfying himself with sufficient cause, set aside the ex parte decree by passing the impugned order.3. Since there is no serious error of law or error of jurisdiction committed by the Court below, I am not inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC by interfering with the impugned order. Moreover, justice demands that husband should obtain contested divorce decree against his wife on account of some laches and negligence on the part o...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Amlabad Colliery of Bccl Vs ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR95(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the instance of the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union, on behalf of the workman, Md. Zubair Alam referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication :Whether the demand of the Union for reinstatement of Md. Zubair Alam as Auto Electrician with back wages w.e.f. 11.12.1989 on account of illegal stoppage from work by the Management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?'2. Md. Zubair Alam was a regular employee and was working as Auto Electrician in Amlabad Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. He was working since 5.1.1987 and was stopped to work from 11.12.1989. As such, on his behalf the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union demanded his reinstatement with back wages with effect from 11.12.1989. On reference of the aforesaid dispute, reference Case No. 105 of 1991 was regist...
Ram Narayan Prasad and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Gupta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR108; [2003(1)JCR326(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 227/95 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 192(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.2. Petitioners filed aforementioned application under Section 192(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the said Act) against the opposite parties praying inter alia for holding inquiry and also for directing delivery of possession of the property left by the deceased Smt. Usha Gupta, which was alleged to have been forcibly taken by the opposite parties.3. Petitioners' case inter alia is that Smt. Usha Gupta, wife of petitioner No. 1 died on 10.6.1994 due to falling into the well. She left behind petitioner No. 1 her husband and petitioner No. 2 minor son and opposite party No. 4 major daughter. It is alleged by the petitioner that property left behind by the deceased were jointly acqui...
Keshwar Mahto and ors. Vs. Govind Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR319(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by Sub-Judge III, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 7/98 whereby he has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the Intervenor/Opposite party No. 1 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC.2. Plaintiffs who are opposite parties No. 2 to 12 filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property. In the said suit, intervenor, Govind Mahto filed application for impleading him as party in the suit. The case of the intervenor is that he is the son of Shyam Lal Mahto who is settled of the land alongwith his brother Ram Lal Mahto and both the brothers exercised their right title and possession jointly and they jointly paid rent to the ex-landlord. In 1947 a dispute arose between the aforesaid two brothers which was alleged to have been amicably settled by executing panchnama. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing rej...
Bharat Ingots and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR30; 2003(86)ECC411; 2003(155)ELT238(NULL)
ORDER1. This an application under Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The following questions of law have been formulated by the petitioner, which the petitioner desires the Tribunal to refer to this Court for adjudication :'1. Whether in view of CWJC No. 482 of 1998(R) filed before this Hon'ble Court on February 19, 1998 and orders dated December 10, 1998 and August 16, 1999 passed thereon and the application made pursuant thereto for payment of duty on the basis of actual production in terms of Section 3-A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on January 4, 1999 and thereafter the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the applicant had opted for payment of duty with reference to capacity of production under Rule 96ZO (3) of theCentral Excise Rules, 1944 during the entire period from December, 1998 to January, 2000 and its purported findings in this behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in rejecting the applicant's clai...
Hind Iron and Steel Corporation Vs. Bokaro Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for parties.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27th September, 2001, whereby respondent No. 5, namely, Senior Executive (Marketing) Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant has cancelled the order for further lifting of balance quantity of coil ends scrap from SPMI.3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.Respondent Bokaro Steel Plant advertised for sale of scraps either by auction or on fixed price. List of the items of scrap for sale was also issued. Petitioner offered to purchase 50,000 MT of scraps and after his offer was accepted, the required amount was deposited by the petitioner. Consequently sale order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 5.6.2002. It is stated that petitioner lifted total quantity of 17.680 MTs of scraps. In the meantime, the impugned order of cancellation was issued. Respondents' case on the other hand is that petitioner was stopped from lifting...
Bhola Nath Mahto and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR512(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Plaintiffs arc appellants. Govind Mahto had two sons, namely. Bodhram Mahto and Ramdayal Mahto. Bodhram Mahto left behind a son Amrit Mahto and Ramdayal Mahto left behind a son Chetlal Mahto. Amrit Mahto and Chetlal Mahto died in 1945 and 1951 respectively. Amrit Mahto had two sons Dharmu Mahto and Sharmu Mahto, Dharmu Mahto died leaving behind widow. Sonamani, defendant No. 3 and Sharmu Mahto died issueless in 1976 Chetlal Mahto left behind his widow, Salo and five sons, namely, Mahadeo Mahto, Shankar Mahto. Bhadu Mahto, Juber Mahto and Sundar Mahto.2. Descendants of Chetlal Mahto filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1978 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over total 8.20 acres land, described in Schedule 1 to the plaint and also for declaration that Revisional survey entry vide Khata No. 110 regarding share of Sharmu Mahto in respect of the lands of Khata No. 110 was prima facie wrong and not binding on them and the sale deed. Exhibit B executed by ...
Smt. Shanti Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR907]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Resolution No. 1343 dated 18th May, 2001, whereby and whereunder, the State of Bihar ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 3,98,398.86 from the amount as was due to the petitioner's husband Late Gauri Shankar Prasad.2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Gauri Shankar Prasad was a Range Officer under the State of Bihar, who worked to the satisfaction of the authorities for more than 25 years. A criminal case was lodged against him in the year 1991 alleging some irregularities committed by petitioner's husband while posted at Sasaram. The husband of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the criminal case, whereinafter three increments were withheld, but again petitioner's husband was suspended on 28th July, 1993 for similar allegations. Subsequently, her husband died before completion of the departmental proceeding and the criminal case as was lodged against him. Thereafter, the Res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »