Jharkhand Court June 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Sinha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: II(2004)ACC332
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The only point involved in this appeal is with respect to the entitlement of the claimant to maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in view of the bar created under Section 167 of the Act. Section 167 reads thus:167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.2. The contention of the appellant insurer before the Tribunal as also before us during the hearing of this appeal has been that because the claimant had exercised option of receiving compensation from the employee of the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19...
State Through S.P., Spe/Cbi, Dhanbad Vs. Bishwanath Prasad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1547
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. Both the Cr. M.P. No. 236 of 2002 and Cr. M.P. No. 40 of 2002 were heard together as both are related to the same case and by this common order, both the applications are being disposed of.2. Cr. M.P. No. 40 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.11.2001 in R.C. case No. 10 of 1989 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Dhanbad and also expunging the evidence of prosecution witness No. 6 whose evidence was recorded in defiance of the order of this Court on 12.7.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001, whereas another Cr. M.P. No. 236 of 2002 has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.11.2001, whereby the learned Special Judge had closed the prosecution and had fixed the case for recording the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr PC.3. The prosecution case in brief as alleged that accused/petitioner for having demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- from the complainant for...
Munna Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1549
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. By the Court.--This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 6.11.2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 420, IPC in connection with Complaint Case No. 1015 of 2001.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant opposite party No. 2 is the partner of Firm M/s. Kamalakant Paul & Sons at Giridih. The said firm deals in Sunmica, laminated glass, plywood, Modi fload glass, Modi mirror and more items. The accused/ petitioner was the authorised representative of M/s. Glass King & Furnishing House, Bhagalpur and he used to purchase various items from the complainant's shop. It is further alleged that on 26.2.2000, the petitioner/ accused purchased plywood, glass and sun-mica worth Rs. 1,53.658.82 and paid only a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- by way of demand draft and for the balance amount of Rs. 48,658.82 paise the accused...
Umeshwar Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3799
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release 1614 Cft. teak wood which was illegally seized by the Sessai police and, in the alternative, for imposition of penalty/ cost upon the responsible police personnel and for payment of compensation but indeed this exposed the highhandedness of the police officers and their conduct with the ordinary citizens.2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass : On receiving information from the Circle Inspector, Sessai that the petitioner has cut teak trees from the land having Khata No. 189, Plot No. 3808, the officer-in-charge, Sessai seized 170 shal tress alleging that the said trees were cut without the permission of the authorities and, accordingly, a criminal case was registered being Sessai PS Case No. 36/95 corresponding to G.R. No. 278/95 under Section 406, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 21-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The police prepared sei...
Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3801
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to make enquiry in relation to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as to whether they are juvenile or not only in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to direct the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to hold enquiry as provided under the said Act.2. The petitioner/informant filed a petition before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj (respondent No. 2) on 20-2-2002 stating therein that the enquiry about the accused as to whether they are juvenile or not can be made by the Board as required under the provisions of the said Act. The accused-respondent No. 4 also filed rejoinder to the said application and after hearing, the...
Arbind Kumar Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2182
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus upon the State of Jharkhand and its functionaries to appoint persons of impeachable and highest integrity and having specialised knowledge in their respective fields to the posts of Chairman and Members of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.2. Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to first discuss about the developments which took place after the filing of the writ petition. Since petitioner had apprehension that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent namely, functionaries of the State of Jharkhand may fill up the post of Chairman and the Members of the State Electricity Board, this Court passed interim order on 7.3.2001 directing that if any appointment is made by the State Government to the post of Chairman or Members of the Board, that shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The ...
Nanku Baitha Vs. Rajni Ranjan and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC535; [2003(2)JCR111(Jhr)]
1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1997 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 222/96 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 15000/-to 25000/-. 3. The claimant-appellant is the husband of Juhi Devi whose death was caused by reason of a motor vehicle accident on 12.5.1990 while she was crossing the road. It is alleged that the offending bus being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased which caused her death. 4. The claimant-appellant led evidence before the Tribunal regarding treatment expenses, mental agony and also the income of the deceased. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased was a earning member, rather, as a matter of fact she was simply a house wife co- operating in the work of the house. On the basis of that finding the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,0...
Eta Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4413
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Both the appeals aforesaid arise from the common judgment and order as such they have been heard analogous and disposed of by this judgment.2. Both the appeals aforesaid have been directed by the appellants named above against the judgment and order dated 20-3-1996 passed by Sri Sarju Prasad, VIIth Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 588/94/T.R. 40/95 whereby all the appellants named above were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years each. However, the appellants were not convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C. in view of the conviction under Section 366, I.P.C.3. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of P.W.1 Dharmshila Devi, the mother of the alleged victim girl Asha Kumari (P.W.4) recorded by S.K. Rai, O/C Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. on 6-4-1994 at 13.00 hours at Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. regarding the occurrence whi...
State Through the Supdt. of Police, Spe/Cbi, Dhanbad Vs. Mithilesh Kum ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1534
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. By the Court.--This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17.1.2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge closed the prosecution case in connection with RC. case No. 1 (A)/89D.2. The prosecution case in brief as stated that the accused while working in different capacities in BCCL during the period has amassed huge assets, both moveable and immoveable by illegal and questionable means in his own name, in the name of his dependents and in benami. It was further stated he earned a total amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- from all sources like salary and Bank interest etc. and contrary to the known source of income. Besides, he possessed assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 7,54,800/- and accordingly FIR was registered for the offence under Section 13(2), read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge was framed in this cas...
Tata Workers' Union and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Jharkhand)325; [2002]256ITR725(Jharkhand)
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the abovementioned batch of writ applications wherein the vires and legality of Notification No. S. O. 940(E), dated September 25, 2001 (see [2001] 251 ITR 81), has been challenged. Vide this impugned notification, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, has brought about an amendment in the Income-tax Rules, 1962. We are concerned in this batch of petitions only with respect to the substitution of new rule 3 with the old one.Substituted rule 3 reads thus :'3. Valuation of perquisites.--For the purpose of computing the income chargeable under the head 'Salaries', the value of perquisites provided by the employer directly or indirectly to the assessee (hereinafter referred to as employee) or to any member of his household by reason of his employment shall be determined in accordance with the following sub-rules, namely :-- (1) The value of residential ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »