Jharkhand Court May 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.
Bansi Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2179
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 24.1.1996 passed in Mandar P.S. Case No. 6/1992/T.R. No. 72/96 by Sri Sarju Prasad, Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ranchi whereby both the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of E.C. Act for the contravention of Bihar Trade Article (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report of informant Ajit Sankar, Circle Officer, Mandar lodged before the O.C., Mandar on 21.1.1992 at 17.30 hrs. regarding the occurrence of that very day which is said to have taken place at 2 O'clock in the day at Mandar Bazar. The prosecution case is that the informant along with S.I. Shiv Prasad Singh as per direction of the D.C. and S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi raided Bombay Market at about 2 O'clock in the day and he found appellant Bansi Sahu, a licensed ...
Ramesh Chandra Prajapati and anr. Vs. Smt. Girija Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR251(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard the parties, plaintiffs suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession over 10 decimals of land, bearing plot No. 892/16 in Mouza Jiradih Bazar, District-Giridhi was dismissed. They preferred appeal and filed a petition for amendment in plaint. By proposed amendment plaintiffs wanted to introduce a new case that his father, Raghunath Bhagat Prajapati was in physical possession of the suit land since theyear 1930, when in original plaint year ofobtaining raiyati settlement was mentionedas 1936. They further wanted to introducethe fact that by mistake of scribe, in registered sale deed dated 4.3.1969, statement regarding raiyati settlement of thesuit land was left to the mentioned. It wasalso alleged that during pendency of suitdefendants forcibly dispossessed them fromthe suit land. By impugned order dated21.1.2002 their prayer was rejected on theground that proposed amendment wouldchange nature of s...
Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1183
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 19.2.2000, whereby and whereunder the learned Railway Magistrate. Chakradharpur. Singhbhum (West) rejected the prayer for release of the truck bearing No. BR 16G/0325 in connection with case No. C/7485/97, which was seized and lying at Muri RPF.2. Notice was issued against O.P. No. 2, said to be the owner/hire purchaser of thetruck in question but inspite of service of notice, neither he appeared nor any counsel on his behalf appeared and about service the petitioner also filed an affidavit claiming that the notice was served on 5.4.2002.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms of agreement, the opposite party No. 2 was only the lessee/hire purchaser and was required to pay lease rent for 35 months of which he only paid four months rent out of advance/dues of Rs. 4,93,600/- in respect of said truck. It is further subm...
Suraj Narayan Tiwary and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4458
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11-5-99 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below passed the order declaring the petitioners as absconder in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 48/94, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 655/94 which was registered under Sections 380/323 I.P.C.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that they have already been appearing before the court prior to submission of the charge-sheet and were also granted bail in this case prior to submission of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case under Sections 380/323 but they had no knowledge about the submission of the same nor any notice or summons were served upon them and as such the petitioners could not surrender or appear in the court below and the court below passed the order impugned without any basis or verifying about servic...
Swapan Ghosh @ Chhotu and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1298; II(2002)DMC786
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 13.7.2000 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 304B/306/109/498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners in connection with Complaint (Protest) Petition No. 276 of 2001.2. It is stated that one Bishamber Brahmchari registered a case before the Argora Police Station being Argora P.S. Case No. 88/2000 which was registered under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C. The police investigated into the case and submitted final report and thereafter a protest petition was filed alleging therein that the complainant's sister Vishnu Priya aged about 22 years was married with Pradeep Ghosh in the year April, 1997. It is further stated that she went to her 'Sasural' where a further demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) was made as dowry and as a result of non-payment of the same, complainant's sister (deceased) was not being treated properly by the petitioners and subjected to...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC92(Jharkh)
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitionerhas challenged the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Kolhan Title (Arbitration Suit No. 1 or 1995. whereby and whereunder while exercising the power under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940), the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa directed the Managing Director of petitioner-TISCO to inspect the site of work awarded to the 4th respondent. to report the position to authority and to appoint an independent arbitrator in place of one Sri R.L. Das. Senior Divisional Manager of TISCO.2. The only question arises as to whether a civil suit under Wilkinson's Rules is maintainable for the purpose of preferring a suit as referred under Sub-section (2) ofSection 20 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 or not.3. The case of petitioner-TISCO is that the 4th respondent-M/s. A.K. Bhattacharjee & Co. filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 before the Additio...
Jagdish Das Vs. Ranchi Ashok Bihar Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1426
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Commi-III.2. the main plea as was taken by the petitioner is that the post was to be filled up from amongst eligible departmental candidates in pursuance of notice published in the Office on 31st October, 1998. The respondent No. 4, an outsider and being not a departmental candidate would not have been appointed to the post of Commi-III in pursuance of such notice.3. The respondents though filed a counter affidavit, but the Court being not satisfied with the same also called for the original records and asked the concerned Officer having knowledge of selection to remain present to assist the Court.4. From the counter affidavit and records, it appears that the post of Commi-III is a post of Cook. The respondent No. 4 was engaged on daily wage in the Hotel Ashok, Ranchi in February, 1991 and since then he is working.5. The Management...
Ashok Kumar Barnwal, Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3978
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In all these cases, one of the questions as was raised is whether the Respondents have jurisdiction to confiscate rice, wheat and edible oil of petitioners after deletion of aforesaid items by Central Government from the purview of licensing order or not,2. CWJC Nos. 2875 of 2000: 2884 of 2000 and 2900 of 2000 while relate to confiscation of rice & wheat, CWJC No. 2952 of 2000 relates to confiscation of edible oil. The petitioners have challenged the confiscation cases initiated against them and the orders passed therein.Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2000 was instituted against petitioner Ashok Kumar Barnwal of CWJC No. 2875 of 2000, wherein confiscation order passed on 17th August, 2000. Confiscation Case No. 20 of 2000 was instituted against Birendra Kumar Barnwal of CWJC No. 2884 of 2000. wherein order of confiscation passed on 17th August, 2000. Confiscation Case No. 17 of 2000 was instituted against Gulab Chand Sao of CWJC No. 2900 of 2000, wherein the o...
Tapas Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1492; [2002(95)FLR413]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the respondents to regularise his service as he is working as Pump Operator since long.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Pump Operator on 10th August, 1986 on hand receipt basis, wherein-after his name was entered as Muster Roll Workman on 25th July, 1987. The petitioner still claiming himself to be working under the 4th Respondent, Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Ranchi.3. His grievance is that though one or other direction given by respondent No. 2 on 13th November, 1992; by Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 24th March, 1995 and information sent by S.D.O., Bundu, P.H.E.D. relating to Muster Roll/Hand Receipt Employee, but no order of regularisation has been issued.4. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the State Government framed any rule/guidelines for regularisation of services of daily wage employees.5. In this background, no direction can be g...
Steel City Compto Aids Private Ltd. Vs. Tehmul Burjorji Bugli and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1296
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27.9.95 passed in Company petition No. 1/92R whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and ordered that the company-respondent No. 1 be wound up and further directed the Registrar and the official liquidator of the Company to proceed in terms of Section 454 of the Companies Act.2. Petitioners-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a company petition purported to be under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the appellant-Company and for appointment of official liquidator for the purpose of liquidating the company and for taking possession of the assets of the company and further for a direction restraining respondent No. 3. Bihar State Financial Corporation to auction the appellant-Company unless the Corporation exonerates the petitioners- respondent Nos, 1 and 2 from all liabi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »