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.
Firoza Khatoon and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1457
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.2. In the present application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-1-2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner before the trial Court for dispensing with their personal appearance in Court as envisaged under Section 205, Cr. P.C. has been rejected. The petitioners are accused in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are said to be sisters of the husband of the complainant.3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh after taking cognizance on 4-1-2002 for the offences under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act issued summons to the accused persons including the petitioners for their appearance in Court.4. A petition under Section 205, Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the trial Cour...
Bharat Oil Seal and Allied Products Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR508(Jhr)]; (2003)IIILLJ105Jhar
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. In this case, the Writ Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Warrant of Attachment of Immovable property (Annexure-7) dated 9.5.1995 which was served on the Petitioners on 13.11.1995. The Petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the Seizure of the Articles made on 14.11.1995 as would be evident from Annexure-8. The Petitioners have also prayed for release of the seized articles in their favour. 3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that for the self-same cause of action, the matter had already been settled and the proceeding initiated were dropped by the District Certificate Officer, Giridih on 30.5.1990 by An-nexure-5 and therefore, 5 (five) years thereafter the matter could not have been kept alive nor could the Respondents be said to have the necessary jurisdiction to once again harass and humiliate the Petitione...
Ashok Kumar Upadhya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR559(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner to suspend the departmental proceeding initiated vide Memo No. V-15014/HEC/Admn.in/Maj (CISF)/200Q/407 dated 14th April, 2000 till the disposal of criminal case in which the petitioner has been committed session being S.T. No. 1227/2000 pending before the Sessions Judge, Nalanda, Bihar.2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that both the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceeding are identical and based on similar set of facts.3. It appears that the petitioner with his unit was sent on deputation on election duty in the year 2000 vide order dated 6th February, 2000 passed by the Deputy Commandant, CISF. On 28th February, 2000, after returning from election duty, one Sri Meena - the inspector of the petitioner's unit, complained against the petitioner to the Dy. Inspector General, CISF. Unit HEC Ltd., Ranchi that on 27th February, 2000, when the inspector gave certain direction to the membe...
Chotanagpur Agro Agencies Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR462(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 18:12.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 5981/2002 whereby the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the decision of the respondents withdrawing/ canceling the tender and dismissed the writ petition.2. The petitioner-appellant, M/s-Chotanagpur Agro Agencies filed the aforementioned writ petition being WPC 5981/ 2002 for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 14.8.2002 published in the daily newspaper, namely, 'Prabhat Khabar whereby the concerned respondent cancelled the tender published in the newspaper dated 2.5.2002 and the corrigendum published on 19.5.2002 in respect of the tender inviting supply of tractors with which was opened on 23.5.2002 and further for quashing the letter dated 14.9.2002 issued by the concerned respondent whereby the petitioner was directed to refund the amount paid to it for the supply of t...
Anupam Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR56(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The determination of the writ is based on the application of Clause 16.4.1 of the 1993 tariff which reads as follows :--The Transformer capacity of H.T. and E.H.T. consumers shall not be more than 150 per cent of the contract demand. If any consumer is found violating this provision his sanctioned connection will be disconnected.The vires of this provision of the tariff has been upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, in this writ only point to be examined is whether the audit objection dated 26.4.99 and the bills dated 26.11.99 (Annexure-5 and 7) are in conformity with the decisions of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court 1994 (II) PLJR 103.2. In the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment one direction was given while upholding the virus of 16.4.1 of the tariff that for arranging additional resources and also for procuring new transformer six months time should be considered a reasonable period for this purpose. In fact this has been one of the arguments o...
Lalji Sahay Bajpai Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR579(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2001, whereby the Divisional Forest Officer, Kolhan Forest Division, being the Licensing Authority, cancelled the license of the Saw Mill of the petitioner and also the order dated 11.5.2002 passed by respondent No. 3, Conservator of Forest, being the appellate authority, who affirmed the order passed by the Licensing Authority.2. Petitioner's case is that he started Saw Mill on a portion of land comprised of RS Plot No. 431 under valid licence granted by the respondents in the year 1976. Petitioner's further ease is that RS Plot No. 431 stands recorded in the name of Sputh Eastern Railway in survey record of right and the land has been shown in possession of Forest Department since 1940. It is contended by the petitioner that time-to-time license was renewed by the Licensing Authority but in 2001 the Licensing Authority refused to renew the license.3. Respondents in their counte...
Krishna Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR141(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner having not received salary from January, 1994 onwards moved before the authorities. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna rejected the claim by an order dated 4th August, 1997 communicated vide memo dated 6th August, 1997, The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court in CWJC No. 502/98(R). In the said case, the Court noticed the stand taken by the respondents and taking into consideration the fact that the Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna failed to decide the question as to how the period is to be counted as per the provisions of Bihar Service Code and salary to which the petitioner would be entitled remitted the matter to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna to pass a reasoned order vide Court's order dated 3rd August, 1999.2. Inspite of such direction no decision was taken by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna till a Contempt Proceeding was preferred by petitioner being Co...
Shankar Prasad Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR131(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,2. By order dated 11.09.2001, six week's time was granted to the State for filling counter affidavit, when the case was taken up next i.e. on 24.11.2002 four week's time as a last chance was granted to the State for filing counter affidavit.3. Today, when the case was takenup again prayer was made for adjournment.Learned counsel for the State stated thatletters were sent to the concerned respondents.4. Thus inspite of the said orders having been passed and communicated from the office of the learned advocate appearing for the State, the Respondents have not chosen either to send instructions to the learned counsel for the State or file counter affidavit in this case. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any further time in this case. The Director, Primary Educatlpn Human Resource Development . Department, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) is directed to look into the matter and ...
Kishori Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR383(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned, sine we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. Appeal is taken up for admission and with the consent of counsel for the parties it is being disposed of finally by this judgment.3. The appellant entered the service of the respondents on 23.1.1981. According to the appellant his date of birth was 1.1.1953. Actually he was earlier given an appointment letter dated 2.5.1974, but he could not joint due to certain problems as is clear from letter dated 19/20.1.1981 (Annexure-4). The case of the appellant is that after he was given another letter of appointment dated 5.12.1979 (Annexure-2) he was medically examined and his age was determined as 27 years on 1.1.1980. But it appears that the age of the appellant was shown in the concerned service record as 3.1.1941. This entry continued. At some point of time the said entry is seen to have been corrected and the date of birth of the appe...
Smt. Chandra Kishori Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR562(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Banerjee, JC to GA.2. The petitioners pray for quashing the final Notification under Section 15(1) as contained at Annexure 8 issued under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'Land Ceiling Act').3. By reason of the aforementioned Notification which, according to the petitioners was published between 15.8.1995 to 31.08.1995 by Annexure 8, 102.89-1/2 Acres of land belonging to the different land-holders were sought to be acquired in various villages but the petitioners are concerned with only those lands situated in villages Saguna and Saguni with Paton Police Station: According to the petitioners, the aforesaid final Notification, as contained at Annexure 8 was made without there being a draft publication under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Celling Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »