Jharkhand Court August 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.
The Tinplate Company of India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1212]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In this case, the management, Tinplate Company of India Ltd., (Company for short) has challenged the award dated 10th February, 1994 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 6/1988, whereby the management has been directed to pay entire back wages except for the period from 28th August, 1985 to 28th October, 1985 during which the workman was in custody. The sole question to be determined in this case whether the management is liable to pay back wages till the date of award, except the period in the facts' and circumstances of the case or not. 2. The admitted fact is that the workman, Kashi Nath Mishra who was in the services of the Company, was taken in custody on 28th August, 1985 in pursuance of a criminal case and remained in custody till 25th October, 1985 i.e. till he was enlarged on bail. 3. The management struck off the name of the workman from the roll as per provision of order 16(b) of the Standing Order withou...
Upendra Singh and Gunjan Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1390; [2003(1)JCR245(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.11.1996 passed by Sri Gangad-har, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T, No. 323/93, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438/93, whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge held appellant Gunjan Singh guilty under Section 366, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months and held appellant Upendra Singh guilty under Section 366, IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo RI for six months and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge also held appellant Upendra Singh guilty under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to further undergo RI for one year. However, the learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the se...
investment Bank of India and anr. Vs. Magadh Spun Pipe Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC366
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26.3.98 passedin Company Petition No. 4/9/94(R), whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner/appellant under Sections 40 and 41 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 as being without jurisdiction and not maintainable.2. Petitioner/appellant namely, Industrial Development Bank of Indiainitially filed an application under Section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 [in short Act of 1984] for an order to sell the properties as contained in Schedules-A, B and C and for ad interim order of injunction restraining respondent No. 1 M/s. Magadh Spun Pipe Limited, its agents and servants from removing or alienating or encumbering the properties and assets during the pendency of the said application. The said Act of 1984 was repealed by the new Act namely, Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1995.The pe...
Loknath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1388; I(2003)DMC251; [2003(1)JCR243(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 6.7.1999 passed by learned Second Addl tional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 521-A/98, whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82-83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner.2. The prosecution case if brief in that opposite party No. 2 filed a Complaint Case No. 28/97 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau. The complaint case was referred under Section 156(3), Cr PC to the concerned police station for institution and investigation of the case and on receipt of the complaint petition at the Chhatarpur Police Station, Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 47/97 under Sections 498-A/304-B, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was instituted against the petitioner and others. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against ot...
Sarju Modi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ631; [2003(1)JCR236(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 21.1.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/95 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Kodema held the appellants guilty under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for ten (10) years under Section 304-B, IPC and further sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three (3) years under Section 498-A, IPC and directed both the sentences to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case in brief is that one Sarita Devi, daughter of Govind Modi, Informant, aged seventeen (17) years, was married to appellant Raj Kumar Modi two years ago. One year prior to the alleged date of occurrence, Sarita Devi had come from Hirodih (her sasural) to her naihar and said that her in-law, are demanding colour T.V. and for that, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (devar) and husband always assault her and torture her and due to their torturing meted out to her by them, s...
Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Kanti Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC265; [2003(1)JCR232(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.2000 passed by Shri Ram Narain Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Cr. Revision No. 37/1998, 5/1998 where the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner allowed the revision application in part filed by the petitioner who is also O.P. In this revision application.2. Case of the petitioner-O.P. of this revision application is that Smt. Kanti Devi filed a Cr Misc. Case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga being Maintenance Case No. 15 of 1994 stating therein that she was married with the petitioner of this revision application at Jammu in a temple in the year 1984 and she lived with this petitioner at Jammu as wife and husband for one and a half year. Thereafter the petitioner of this revision application brought her to Lohardaga where she lived with this petitioner as wife and husband; two chil...
Sunil Gowala @ Sunil Gope and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR239(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both Criminal Appeal Nos. 104 and 106 of 1996 (R) have arisen out of same judgment and order of sentence dated 27.11.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 392/97 under Sections 395 and 412, IPC, are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.11.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1987, whereby the Ist Additional Sessions Judge; Gumla held the appellants guilty under Sections 395 and 412, IPC. Appellant Fedrik Minj (in Cr. Appeal No. 104/96) was found guilty under Section 395, IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Other appellants Ernious Ekka, Sunil Ekka, Kamil Lakara and Tintus Ekka were held guilty under Section 412, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. Prosecution case in brief is that one Sharan Ohdar (informant) gave a fardbeyan on 8.8.1996 that he worked as Khalasi at Tudurma and reside in t...
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Governm ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR453(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. The writ petitioner in the instant case has espoused the cause of one Manoj Kumar Sinha and has prayed for quashing of the Award dated 21.02.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad (here-in-after referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Tribunal) in Reference Case No. 126/89 by reason whereof he has upheld the action of the management in dismissing the aforementioned Manoj Kumar Sinha (here-in-after referred to for the sake of brevity as the concerned workman).2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to some of the paragraphs of the Award for purposes of satisfying this Court that the same is perverse or that it suffers from the patent irregularity/illegality and deserves to be set aside by this Court.3. The case of the concerned workman was that he was a permanent employee of the Bhowra Coke Oven Plant of BCCL. On the date when the aforementioned Plant was n...
Kanhai Das Vs. Anjani Kumar Barail and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR261(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant-claimant could not substantiate his claim of compensation on the ground of his having sustained the injuries. Of course, PW 5 was produced by the claimant, but his evidence was so bereft of the material facts and particulars that it could not prove any fact relating to the injuries. Specifically, the Tribunal was fully justified in saying that even in his entire evidence, the claimant-appellant did not talk of his having suffered any permanent disablement.2. The appeal is dismissed....
Banshi Dhar Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC336; 2002(50)BLJR1879
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17.5.2001, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 420, IPC in connection with C/1 case No. 1097 of 2000.2. It is alleged that in October, 1996, the Informant took loan from M/s. Trade Well Finance Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for which some papers and cheques were kept in security. The said loan was duly cleared and the complainant against asked for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was granted as loan. The cheques and other documents retained by the said Company and the said cheques were deposited by the Establishment of the petitioner, but it could not be encashed. Notices were also given by the Establishment to the Informant but on receipt of the said notice the petitioner could know about the such presentation of the cheques. As such the complaint case was filed being...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »