Jharkhand Court March 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.
Annapurna Mistanya Bhandar Vs. Satya NaraIn Dudhani and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR424(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This revision application at the instance of defendant/tenant is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39/96 whereby he has allowed the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff landlord under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC for adding and inserting in the plaint the subsequent default as a ground for eviction.2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed Title (eviction) Suit No. 1/85 for a decree of eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises on payment of rent of Rs. 275/-. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent since the month of October, 1983 upto December, and 1984. The suit was contested by the defendant stating inter alia that there is no default in payment of the rent. Learned Sub-Judge, Dhanbad in terms of judgment dated 17.10.1996 dismissed the suit by recording a finding that there is no defaul...
Jhupru Degri Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR600b(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides and perused the writ petition and counter affidavit.2. The petitioner was given a higher pay scale and thereafter he retired, after retirement when the matter was referred to the Accountant General it was detected by the office of the Accountant General that the petitioner had not passed Hindi Noting and Drafting examination and therefore his promotion in higher scale was not legal. Consequently the Accountant General referred back the matter to the department concerned for sending back the service book after making relevant corrections. The A.G. appeared and said that they are the Institutions for watching the implementation of the different Government circular and if the circular says and in absence of passing Hindi Noting and Drafting examinations the promotion can not be given, in that situation any action on the part of the A.G. is just and proper. Learned counsel representing the A.G. also expressed his annoyance over the matter...
Ramchandson and Company Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR349(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The basic question to be answered in this writ petition is whether bills on H.T. Tariff can be raised from a Consumer, whose and whether such a consumer, if he expresses his intention for getting his load reduced, for remaining in L.T. Category, a new L.T. Agreement is required to be executed?2. The aforesaid question arose out of the facts that the petitioner held a L.T. agreement with a sanctioned load of 80 HP. It was admittedly a Low Tension Agreement. When a surprise inspection was made in the year 1990, Annexure-1, the petitioner was found to be using load of 69.5 HP. According to the petitioner, there is a provision for conversion of the existing LTS having connected load of 80 HP into a HTS consumer. After coming of the Tariff, the respondents raised bill against the petitioner on the basis of H.T. Tariff, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal, so the petitioner requested the respondents to revise the bills on the basis of the L...
Dilip Kumar Das Vs. Palamau Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR698(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The main question to be answered in this writ petition is whether a delinquent employee, who has not been served with a copy of the enquiry report prior to the order of the disciplinary authority though on the basis of that enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority punished him and thereafter delivered a copy of the enquiry report along with the punishment order is violative of the principles of natural justice?2. The aforesaid question arose out of the fact that the petitioner, who was a clerk with respondent Bank, was promoted to the Officers' Cadre and was ultimately promoted to the post of the Branch Manager on 1.5.1990. On 5.1.1992, the Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers' Association was decided to be established and on 12.1.1992 six office bearers were elected and the petitioner became one of the Executive Members of the newly formed Association and the intimation thereof was given to the authorities. On 22.2.1992, the petitioner was served with a c...
Ladu Munda @ Ludu Munda and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR458(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Junior Counsel to the Government Advocate for the respondents-State; and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.2. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the Orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 5.9.1997 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 141 (R) 15 of 1997-98 (Annexure 1), whereby and whereunder the said Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioners thereby upholding the order of the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi passed on 2.6.1997 in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1992 by which he had refused to interfere and had dismissed the application for restoration filed by the petitioners.3. According to the petitioners, their father (Bhalu Munda) was in possession of the lands in question as a raiyat and in support of the aforementioned submission the petitioners have relied upon Annexure 3 which is the photocopy of the certified copy of R.S. records ...
Saraswati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1512
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-8-2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G. R. case No. 153 of 1995 corresponding to Gumla P. S. case No. 99 of 1995 whereby an application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. filed by the informant (petitioner) has been rejected.3. For the purpose of deciding the issues in questions in this application, it is not necessary to state the facts in details. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the Fardbeyan of Saraswati Devi the informant (petitioner) a case under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered, in which the police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and ultimately after framing of the charges, the accused persons were facing trial. Against all the eight accused persons the charge under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›