Jharkhand Court January 2003 Judgments
Sanatan Diggi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR643(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Sole appellant Sanatan Diggi has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 14th February, 2000 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 1995 whereby and whereunder appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and also to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one year, directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case is based on the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of the informant Amar Singh Nayak Munda (PW 5) recorded on 19.6.1994 at 20.00 hour by SI R.P. Singh, O/C Jhinkpani (PW 9) at village Choya is that in the evening while he was in his home, then Pitam Kunkal and Samir Diggi took h...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Construction Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC547; [2003(2)JCR67(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for following relief :--I. To issue writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner's agreement in relation to work allotted vide job No. 023/B.R./99-515 and 516 vide F-2. Agreement be not closed. II. To issue writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to make any deductions what so ever from any other work so allotted to the petitioner under a valid separate agreement and also to direct the respondents to refund the amount if already deducted to the petitioner forthwith. III. To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus holding that the deductions made by the respondents as communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.755 dated 18.11.2002 under the signature of respondent No. 6 is ab initio void, illegal and without jurisdiction and the amount so deducted by the respondents be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. IV. To issue a...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Muni Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR64(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. According to hisoriginal date of birth as entered into servicebook, the petitioner was to superannuatew.e.f. 31.1.1986 but by Annexure-3 theDepartment informed the petitioner that hewas going to complete the age of 58 yearsand to superannuate w.e.f. 30.11.1986.Consequently, for preparing the pensionpapers he was directed to submit the documents. Then again by Annexure-3/1 he wasdirected by the Department to hand overthe charge to the Divisional Forest Officer,Munger. Placing reliance on these twodocuments the learned counsel for thepetitioner argued that the petitioner wasadmittedly to superannuate w.e.f. 31.1.1986and in these two letters there is no controversy being raised by the departmentthat his earlier date of superannuation is30.1.1986.2. It is required to be stated herein that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court for correction of his date of birth asthere was some controversy with regard to that. According to the petitioner the date of b...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Coal Agencies Ltd. Vs. Indian Colour Sheets Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR517; [2003(2)JCR69(Jhr)]; [2003]46SCL216(Jhar)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application under Section 433(e), 433(f), Section 434. Section 439(1)(c) and Section 450 of the Companies Act. 1956 has been preferred by petitioner, Alok Coal Agencies Limited (for short Company), a Company limited by shares under the Companies Act, 1956, wherein prayer has been made to wind up the O.P. No. 1, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited (for short M/s. ICSL), to appoint official liquidator to take charge of all assets, properties and all other movableand immovable assets etc. of the O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL and to pay the dues of the Petitioner-Company by sell or otherwise of the property and assets of the said O.P. No. 1, M/s. ICSL.2. Initially, M/s. Indian Colour Sheets Limited was only impleaded as O.P.party to the application. Subsequently, a petition for intervention was filed on be half of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short BSIDC) to implead it as O.P. No. 2.3. According to petitioner-company, the O.P. No. 1, M/s. I...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand Vs. Saiyad Rizwan
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2098; [2003(2)JCR235(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In SessionsTrial No. 66 of 2000, learned 1st AdditionalSessions Judge, Jamshedpur, vide judgment and order of conviction and sentencedated 8th March, 2001 and 13th March,2001 respectively, convicted accusedSaiyad Rizwan alias Soni and ChaitaliBhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu R.I.for five years under Section 201, IPC, R.I.for five years under Section 468, IPC, R.I.for five years under Section 420, IPC, R.I.for three years under Section 380, IPC andR.I. for two years under Section 411 readwith Section 34, IPC, all of which are to runconcurrently. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC, both the accused have been awarded capital sentence. The Death Reference No. 1 of 2001 was listed for determination as to whether it is to be confirmed or not. A separate Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2001 has been preferred by accused Saiyad Rizwan alias Soni and Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu, which was also heard along with the above...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC412; [2003(2)JCR521(Jhr)]
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.2.2001, whereby and whereunder a distress warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner in connection with Cr. Misc. No. 66 of 1999. 2. Short facts giving rise to this application is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition before the Court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming therein that she was married with the petitioner on 16.9.1993 at Amara Para according to the Hindu Religion. After marriage, she went to Phulwaria at the house of the petitioner and started living and in the year 1994, a female child was born. The opposite party No. 2 in the year 1995 went to her parental home. It is further alleged that the petitioner alongwith other started torturing the opposite party No. 2 and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and she was subjected to mental and physical torture even at the period of pregnancy. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Boka Pahariya Vs. Mangal Munda
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR573(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The appellants in both the appeals being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1992 convicting and sentencing them imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC and further to go RI for three years each of the offence punishable under Section 201/34, IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to go further RI for three months, have preferred these appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella.2. The facts giving rise to these criminal appeals is that informant Sagar Munda (PW 9) in writing on 22.12.1991 informed the O/C, Chandial PS that his younger son Tete Munda was residing at Ranga Matia, PS - Chandil. On Thursday, Sukhram Munda, son of Bishun Munda (PW 3) and Siwan Munda (PW 4) of village Ranga Matia informed him that his younger so...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR143(Jhr)]
ORDER1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Ajit Kumar (In person) and on giving out thoughtful consideration, the scheme for Baba Baidyanath Temple Management Board as framed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court (copy enclosed as annexure A to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 27th September, 2002) is approved with the following modifications.2. At page 2 of the draft Scheme, Members mentioned at serial No. 10 & 11 of (III) (A) shall stand deleted. This is being done because as per the order passed by this Court on 16.12.2002, Panda Dharmrakshini Sabha had declined to nominate any member to the Board or to be represented in this Board. In place of these two struck off members, the following new members are hereby added:--(i) Advocate General, Jharkhand, ex afficio,(ii) Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.3. In Clause (IX) (b) of the draft Scheme for the words 'a clear majority of the existing strength ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo Oraon Vs. Sri Ruplal Manjhi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2771; [2003(4)JCR363(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In L.P.A. No. 367 of 2000 (R) on 16.8.2001 the following interim order was passed by the Division Bench:--'After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and stay the operation of the judgment under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge and also stay and suspend the operation of the impugned transfer order and by ordering restoration of status-quo-ante as appearing prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order relegate the petitioners- appellants to their respective original positions.'2. This contempt application is based on the aforesaid Division Bench Order linked with the petitioner's grievance that on 12.11.2002, months after the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Khunti. Notice of show cause was issued and Mr. Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi filed his show cause on 28.1.2003, in which he basically raised two pleas. The first plea was that the petitioner vide Order dated 12.11.2...
Tag this Judgment!Baikunth Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2135
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. All the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24th Sept, 1987, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1985/68 of 1985, whereby and whereunder, all the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, directing both the sentences in respect of each convict to run concurrently.2. The fact of the case, which is based on the Fard-beyan (Ext. 1/1) of the informant Prabhu Mahto (PW 1) is that in the night of 5/6th January, 1983 informant Prabhu Mahto (PW 1) along with deceased Bhuneswar Raut, PW 6 Tarni Raut and PW 5 Mohan Mahto was sleeping in the Khalihan of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »