Jharkhand Court December 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.
Lal Mohan Pathak Vs. B.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR312(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Bihar State Road Construction Corporation. The order of dismissal was forwarded to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947.2. The learned Presiding Officer did not choose to approve the dismissal order, it having not passed in accordance with law. It was challenged by the Corporation before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9302 of 1994, which was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 7.7.1995. The Corporation also lost before the appellate Court in L.P.A. No. 920 of 1995. The Corporation thereafter moved before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and dismissed the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 990 of 1997, vide order dated 27th January, 1997.3. In view of the fact that the order of dismissal was not affirmed and thereby it was never given effec...
Tulabala SardarIn and Dinbandhu Singh Sardar @ Dinbandhu Singh Vs. Sta ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR146; [2003(1)JCR296(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the appellants, named above, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.61.1991, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1990, whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, both of them have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, as per the written information of the informant Raj Kumar Prasad, S.I. (PW 3), is that he received a written report on 13.5.1990 at 8.15 a.m. from Dinbandhu Singh Sardar (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1991), mentioning therein, that on 12.5.1990 in between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon his younger brother Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar committed suicide by hanging. On his written statement, U.D. Case No. 2 o...
Prof. Raghu Nath Ray and ors. Vs. the Sidhu Kanhu University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR314(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction on the respondents to pay them the retiral benefits and other dues on the basis of last pay drawn by them.2. According to petitioners, they were promoted to the posts of University Professor by one or other order.3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Prof. Raghunath Roy and Prof. Chandradhar Pathak 'Arya' were promoted to the post of University Professors of Economics vide notification No. 106/87 dated 1st September, 1987 w.e.f. 1st February, 1985. The petitioner No. 3, Prof. Namo Narayan Jaj-ware was promoted as University Professor w.e.f. 1st February, 1985 vide notification No. 108/87. The petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. namely, Prof. Krishna Prasad Deo and Prof. Nitya Nand Mishra were promoted to the post of University Professors w.e.f 25th November, 1986 and 13th January, 1987 respectively vide notification No. 101/87 dated 1st September, 1987 issued by the then Bhagalpur University. The petiti...
Singh Saw Mill Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR509(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Application the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.7.2001 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar (Respondent No. 3) in Confiscation Case No, 27 of 2000 by which the application for grant of licence was refused and the Petitioner was. directed to displace his Saw Mill within fifteen days from the order and deposit those 21 logs (which had been confiscated during the year 1995) with the Range Officer of Forest, Deoghar soil Conservation Range at Kalyanpur Range Campus. By the same order the other 63 pieces of logs and 25 pieces of Sawn Timber were released with a direction upon the Petitioner to dispose off the same within fifteen days from the order.2. The Petitioner has also made a prayer for a direction upon the Respondents to grant him the necessary licence treating him to be licencee with effect from 1995 (from the date the Petitioner had deposited the requisite fee) and further, to renew the licence in terms of the B...
Parsuram Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR272(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1993 and 13.2.1993 respectively passed by Shri S.K. Lal, 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 694/1991 whereby and whereunder they have been convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC, sentencing them to go R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC and R.I. for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC, ordering that both the sentences in each count in respect of each convict will run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan, of PW 1, Tijan Devi, recorded in village Rohandih at 10 p.m. on 18.7.1990 by Manzur Ali, PW 6, S.I. of Sikidripur P.S., is that on 18.7.1990 at about 7 p.m. husband of the informant-Jagmohan Mahto (since deceased) came to his house then the-found that Dharmu Mahto (not appellant) was digging the earth in front.of his house. Her husband when objected then Dharmu Mahto abused ...
Jagdish Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR282(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.1994 passed by Shri Ram Kishore Singh, Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 37/1987, whereby and whereunder the appellant No. 1, Jagdish Pandey, has been convicted under Sections 302, 452 and 148, IPC and sentenced to go RI for life under Section 302, IPC, RI for 5 years under Section 452, IPC and RI for one year under Section 148, IPC, the other appellants, Basudeo Roy, Laxman Roy and Arjun Mandal have been convicted and sentenced to go RI for life under Section 302/34, IPC, RI for 5 years under Section 452, IPC and RI for one year under Section 148, IPC. The appellant No. 2, Basudeo Roy, was further convicted and sentenced to go RI for one year under Section 323, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge had ordered that the sentences in respect of all the convicts for each count will run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of the inf...
Rinku Kumari @ Riko Kumari Vs. C.C.L. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR363(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The father of the petitioner, Late Mathura Mahto who was in the services of M/s. C.C.L. in its Sayal 'D' Colliery, Bhurkunda, Hazaribagh, died in harness on 16 January, 2000. The petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment as per Clause 9, 3, 2 of N.C.W. Agreement, but it has been rejected on the ground of delay in making application, vide order dated 8th March, 2002.3. According to the respondents, the deceased employee Late Mathura Mahto died on 16th January, 2000, whereas the application for compassionate appointment of petitioner was submitted on 8th May, 2001 i.e. after fifteen months.3. On the other hand according to the petitioner, she applied well within time i.e. within one year from the date of death as per circular dated 1st January, 2002.4. It is a question of fact whether the petitioner applied within one year from the date of death of her father or not, but from the Annexures attached by the petitioner and not disputed by the responde...
Sonia Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR961]; [2003(1)JCR528(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. The petitioner's husband had died in harness then she applied for her appointment to Class IV post on compassionate ground. By Annexure 2 she was appointed on the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dhanbad. This letter was issued on 31.3.1994.3. A letter of department regarding compassionate appointment, as contained in Annexure 3 was issued on 12.4.1994, which reads as follows :--'Sankhya 13 Stha-176/93, P.Ma. 2693 Pashupalan Vibhag, Bihar, PatnaPreshak. Dr. Ram Raj Ram, Nideshak, Pashupalan Vibhag, Bihar, PatnaSewa Me, Sabhi Kshetriya Nideshak, PashupalanSabhi Zila Pashupalan PadadhikariBishaya : Anukampa ke aadhar per keshtriya pa'dadhikari dwara ke ja rahi niyukti ke sabandhya me.Mahashya,Upyukta bishaya ke ore aapka dhyan akrishta kartey huya kahana hai ki kshetriya padhadhikari dwara anukam-pa per verge 3 awang verg 4 ke path per zila striya anukampa samiti se anus...
Bajranghlal Singhania Vs. Ratan Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR599(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.Heard the Parties.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by Munsif at Jamshedpur in Execution Case No, 23/98 whereby he has held that before passing order for issuance of writ of delivery of possession, notice to show cause against one of the Judgment debtors is mandatary in view of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 22(1)(a) of the C.P.C.2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.3. Petitioner filed Eviction Suit No. 124/92 for eviction of the defendants/ opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was decreed in terms of judgment dated 31.8.98. The decree holder opposite parties levied Execution Case No. 23/98 for execution of the decree. In the meantime, opposite parties preferred civil revision being C.R. No. 519/98R before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. The Civil Revision was dismissed on 10.8.2001. The opposite parties then filed S.L.P. No. 7049/2002 which was ...
Bhuwaeshwar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR131(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner has prayed for revocation of the order of suspension dated 4.11.1997. He has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.4.2000 by which the petitioner was informed that till finalization of the departmental proceedings the petitioner would continue to be under suspension.2. The petitioner has also prayed for costs of Rs. 25,000/- for having put him in a state of prolonged suspension thereby causing harassment upon him.3. From the facts as pleaded in the Writ Application, it is apparent that by an order dated 4.11.1997 the petitioner was put under suspension retrospectively with effect from 8,8.1997 on the ground of his having been sent to jail in relation to a case under Sections 498-A, 494, 380, 342, 320-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 1679 of 1998 (R). This was disposed off on 3.12.1998 with a direction that the District Establishment Committee will con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »