Jharkhand Court March 2003 Judgments
Sanjit Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: II(2004)DMC338; [2003(2)JCR501(Jhr)]
Deoki Nandan Prasad 1. This Revision application is directed against the order dated 9.9.2002, whereby the whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad rejected the petition for discharge is connection with Dhanbad PS case No. 71 of 1999 (Sessions Trial NO. 355 of 2002).2. The prosecution case in brief as alleged that one Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha lodged an FIR alleging therein that his daughter Vidya Sinha alias Renu was married with accused Santosh Kumar Sinha in the year 1993. After some time the accused persons including the petitioners started demanding money and due to non-fulfillment of the demand they started torturing his daughter. Thereafter the informant somehow or other paid a sum of Rs. 38,000/- to Santosh Kumar Sinha on the pretext of employment. Thereafter, for some time his daughter remained peaceful but later on again the accused persons started torturing his daughter and demanding money. His daughter also written a letter describing all the facts. His daug...
Tag this Judgment!Daud Minj and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR657(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These appeals arose out of a common judgment passed by Special Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge Ranchi, They have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The impugned judgment and award has been passed by the special Subordinate Judge Ranchi on the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that in the year 1962 by notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, about 17.49 acres of land at Hinoo and Argora for construction of quarters of HSL company was acquired. The Collector published the award on 5.5.1973 and assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,375 per acres for the Chhaparbandi land. The claimant- appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act and consequently series of land reference cases were registered in the Court of Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi. The claimants seriously objected the valuation of the land assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge and claimed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Mondal Vs. Smt. Josna Mondal
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR74(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the impugned judgment passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973. In respect of such order, this Court may call for and examine the records of the proceedings of the Family Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of the order, not being interlocutory and as such the present appeal is not maintainable. However, since the appeal was already admitted on 20.8.1996, we treat it as revision under Section 19(4) of the Act, and decide on merit.2. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad considered claim of Josna Mondal for maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from her husband, Kailash Mondal vide Maintenance Petition No. 50 of 1993 and by the impugned judgment dated 14.11.1995, allowed her claim to get monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- with effect from January, 1995. The husband has challenged the said order in the present appeal.3. Admittedl...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Talib Siddiquee Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR154(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents Corporation.2. During the course of arguments. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the matter relating to revival of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is being monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and certain orders from time to time are being passed in relation thereto. He has further stated that in that view of the matter and also taking into consideration the order dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court should not pass any order inconsistent with the orders of the Apex Court. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the said order dated 16.4.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7290 for perusal of this Court and it reads as follows :--'Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Issue notice to State of Jharkhand. Inasmuch as this Court has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Ex-employees Welfare Society Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR343(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal., J. 1. The members of the petitioner-Society are the erstwhile employees of the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC) having superannuated under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and they are in occupation of the quarters of the Corporation on payment of market rent. On the basis of these fact the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 1.11.2000 issued to one of the members of the petitioner- Society asking him to vacate the quarter within 30 days and after clearing the outstanding dues failing which a proceeding for eviction shall be initiated.2. The admitted facts are that on 13.1.1999 an office order was issued by the Corporation intimating that the Management had decided to charge market rent for all the quarters allotted to the employees on leave and license basis including the outsiders and the employees who took voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In 1999 another office order was issued by the Corporation vide circular dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Baidnath Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR121(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has praysed for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 275 dated 1.7.1995 issued by respondent No. 2, Superintendent Engineer, PHE Circle, Dhanbad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first time bound promotion has been rejected.2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner along with others was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk in 1979. In 1993 a seniority list was prepared wehrein the petitioner was shown senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On completion of 10 years of service the petitioner filed a representation on 11.12.1989 for grant of first time bound promotion. It is contended that no decision was taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner and in the meantime respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were granted first time bound promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner.3. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioner and the concerned respondents were appointed in Class-III post in ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meena Sinha Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC641; [2004(1)JCR267(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Anil Kumar Sinha, aged about 38 years was employed as Mining Inspector in the office of District Mining Office, Dhanbad. On 29th April, 1978, while going on his scooter (BRR 8938) at the junction of the Officers Colony Road and Lubi Circular Road of Dhanbad town, he was dashed by a truck (BHR No. 7993).2. In the said accident has sustained serious injury and subsequently died.His widow, Meena Sinha filed Title (MV) No. 63 of 1978 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad, for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').3. It was established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent drive of the truck, which resulted into death of Anil Kumar Sinha. On the basis of his monthly salary @ Rs. 660/-, which he was getting at the time of accident, the annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 3960.00 and after deducting half of his monthly earnings towards personal expenses and applying 16 multiplier total amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Prasad Banerjee Vs. Smt. Meera Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1018; [2003(2)JCR725(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant-tenant under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The plaintiffs, the landlords of the building, filed the suit for eviction under Section 11(1) (c) and (d) of the Act on the ground that they bona fide required the building in question for their own occupation and on the ground that the rent payable by the tenant was in arrears and the defendant-tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent. The defend anttenant resisted the said application by denying the bona fide requirement of the building for the occupation of the plaintiffs and also denying that the rent was in arrears and he was a defaulter. A further plea was taken by the defendant that the suit premises was originally let out to his father, wherein he was carrying on his profession and after his death, the building was inherited by his successors-in-interest, including t...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Ram Vs. Jawahar Lal Vishwakarma
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1071; [2003(2)JCR724(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Heard both sides.2. The plaintiff in a suit for eviction is the petitioner in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was presumably filed by the plaintiff, acting through his father, as his power of attorney. In the written statement, the defendant, inter alia, raised a plea that the plaintiff was not behind the suit and the father of the plaintiff had forged the signature of the plaintiff and had instituted the suit.3. The suit was posted for evidence, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, though the plaintiff himself was not examined. On behalf of the defendant, 13 witnesses were examined. The suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the defendant apparently changed his counsel. At that stage, an application was made on behalf of the defendant praying that the signature on the vakalatnama and the power of attorney produced in the suit, said to be that of the plaintiff, may be sen...
Tag this Judgment!Baidhyanath Prasad Singh Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR144(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This case is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner has prayed for direction upon concerned respondents to stop deducting amount from salary of the petitioner which is being deducted in view of Order No. 210/2390 dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure 2) issued by the Electrical Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Dhanbad (respondent No. 3) on account of non-passing Hindi Noting and Drafting examination by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's case is as follows. Petitioner is an employee of the Board and he is posted as Account Assistant, Electrical Supply Division, Ramgarh Cantt. He passed the said examination on 12.12.1988 (Annexure-1). Even then since January, 2001, Rs. 250/- per month is being deducted, against which he made several representations but nothing has been done in this regard. By the impugned memo dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure-2) his salary from 15.7.1979 to 7.8.1988 has been refixe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »