Jharkhand Court February 2003 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.
Most. Parbati Devi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR539(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Pradip Modi appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred as the private respondents).2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.7.2000 (Annexure 4) passed by the Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur, Ranchi in Gumla Permission Appeal No. 288/97 disposing of the revision application filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 and 4. In the said order Commissioner has held that the deed of gift made by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 was against the customary law and the same was executed in hurry without waiting for the statutory, period prescribed for filing revision and the result of such revision. Thus he directed the revenue authorities not to recognize the deed of gift in question. He further annulled the order of mutation based on the said deed of gift and observed that the writ ...
Smt. Kishore Satsangi Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR72(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The husband of petitioner late Gurusharan Stasangi was head clerk in the Sikidary Hydel Project, Ranchi under the Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness on 22nd December, 1996. The respondent, thereafter, when sanctioned the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. One lac in favour of petitioner, ordered to recover certain amount and to pay only a sum of Rs. 61,383.40 paise to the petitioner.2. The petitioner being dissatisfied, had to move before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 24 of 2001, against the order dated 20th December, 1999. The consequential pay fixation as was made vide Memo No. 164, dated 30th March, 1999 was also challenged. This Court vide Order dated 12th March, 2001, while did no decide the case on merit, asked the petitioner to represent the competent authority, who was asked to decide the matter.3. Thereafter, inspite of representation, no decision having been taken by the respondents, this writ petition was preferred. 4. The respond...
The State of Bihar Vs. Chandra Bhanu Som and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2793
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. The petitioners in all the three Criminal Revision applications, referred to above, are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th January, 2000, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, he has rejected the petition, filed by the prosecution to summon Chandra Bhanu Som (Opp. Party No. 1 in Cr. Rev. Nos. 388/2000 and 520/ 2001 and Opp. Party No. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 369/2001) under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') to face trial along with other co-accused/ opposite parties. Cr. Rev. No. 388 of 2000 has been preferred by the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Cr. Rev. No. 369 of 2001 has been preferred by accused Munna Singh whereas Cr. Rev. No. 520 of 2001 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.2. The case of the prosecution, which is based on the Fard-beyan of Sanjay Malviya, registered as Deogh...
Chandra Mohan Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3095
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20-8-1997 and 23-8-1997 respectively, passed by Shri Swaroop Lal, the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 22/95/26/1995, whereby and where-under, he convicted the appellant No. 1, Chandra Mohan Mandal, under Section 302, IPC and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3, Hari Mohan Mandal, and Bijay Mandal under Section 307, IPC and sentenced the appellant No. 1, Chandra Mohan Mandal, to go imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and the appellant No. 2, Hari Mohan Mandal and the appellant No. 3, Bijay Mandal, were sentenced to go R.I for life for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. The other two accused, Gajadhar Mandal and Rameshwar Mahto, who were charged under Sections 109, 302, 307 and 120B, IPC, were acquitted.2. The prosecution case as per the fard beyan, Ext. 4, of the informant, Guddu Kumar Mandal, P. W. 5, recorded ...
Jai Hari Bera and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2188
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants named above against the impugned judgment dated 20th September, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1997 by Sri S. H. Kazmi, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and whereunder all the appellants aforesaid were found guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Prasanna Kumar Bera, the uncle of P.W. 2, Dinesh Chandra Bera, the informant and also causing the evidence of the said offence to disappear with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. but no separate sentence for the offence under Section 201/34 I.P.C. was imposed against them.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fard beyan (Ext. 1) of P.W. 2, Dinesh Chandra Bera, the informant recorded by P.W. 8, ASI, Lalit Lakra of Gurabanda P.S., Ghatshila on 22-4-1996 a...
Smt. Lakshmi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR469(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. The petitioners arc aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi in Case No. 26 Rule 28 of 1993-94 by reason whereof he initiated proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for annulment of the settlement made by the then Landlord in respect of lands situated on RS Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 6 appertaining to Khata No. 87 and situated in Village Bargawan, P.S. Nam-kom, District-Ranchi, and also passed an order for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the names of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as also in the names of Smt. Urmila Devi (wife of Petitioner No. 3 and mother of Petitioner Nos. 4 to 7) as also of Smt. Simalo Devi (since deceased) and mother of Petitioner Nos. 3 and 8 to 10. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.1994 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi affirming the said order dated 17.11.1993 (Annexure 43) passed in Revenue Appeal No. 451 of 1993 and 432 of 1993...
Savita Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR91(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties and perused counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties. Petitioner's writ application to respondent to call him for interview for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) was dismissed on 8.3.1994 holding that screening of a candidate out of consideration at, the threshold of the process for selection was neither illegal nor unconstitutional, illegitimate field demarcating the choice by reference to some rational formula was carved out. Petitioner's challenge thereto under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was not tenable. It was further observed that cut-off mark of a candidate to be called for interview was 56.15% whereas petitioner was given weightage only to the extent of 51.95% which was below the aforesaid cutoff marks and, therefore, she was not called for interview.2. In the present review application on the basis of information, petitioner alleged that general cut-off mark was 51.72% and not 56.15% and that sh...
Hari Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR417(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. In this case, one of the question arises as to who amongst the successor State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand is to accept the petitioner's joining, the order of suspension having been set aside?Apart from this, the following questionhas been referred to the Division Bench :--In the circumstances, the questionarises whether the ratio laid down in'Arvind Bijay Bilung', 2001 (3) Jhr. CR155 (Jhr), applies in the case of thosewho are on deputation in one or otherdepartment/organization or not.'2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The services of the petitioners was placed on deputation by posting order No. 1206/97 dated 12.6.1997 in the Police District of Dhanbad by the State of Bihar, prior to the re-organization of the State. The petitioner was discharging his duties as Sub-Inspector, Rail District, Crime Branch. Dhanbad when the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Re-organization Act') came into force. The petitioner continued t...
Manoj Prasad Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR209(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by Collector, Dhanbad in Licence Appeal No. 3 of 2000 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and order dated 8.11.1999 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Dhanbad cancelling the fair price shop dealership licence granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984.2. The petitioner was granted fair price shop licence. The Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad on the basis of complaint made by a public initiated a proceeding against the petitioner for cancellation of licence and after hearing the parties and considering the inquiry report passed final order of cancellation of licence. The said order was affirmed by the Collector in appeal filed by the petitioner.3. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the licensing authority after considering the sh...
Banwari Choudhary, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. and State of Bihar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR390(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In these cases as almost similar question is involved, they were heard together for disposal.2. The petitioners were working on daily wage under the State since 1982-84 and performing duties of class-IV employees. Some of them earlier moved before this court for 'parity of pay' and some of them for regularization of their services. This Court vide order dated 25th September, 1996 in the case of Banwari Choudhary and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 3872 of 1995(R), directed the respondents to pay the minimum of the scale of 4th grade employees to the petitioners of the said case.3. In another case CWJC No. 2811/ 1998(R), Satya Narayan Slngh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., the Court vide order dated 17th November, 1999 made following observations and directions. 'Heard Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned JC to GA. In this writ application the petitioners seek issuance of appropriate direction to the responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »