Jharkhand Court April 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.
Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Paulus Soren and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR710(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties. Inspite of service of notice the opposite parties have not appeared, hence this Civil Revision Application is disposed of.2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 7.8. 2002 passed by the Sub Judge IXth, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1999 whereby he has rejected the Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1999 and refused to restore the Execution Case No. 2 of 1984.3. It appears that the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for eviction of the defendant was ultimately decreed ex parte. The decree was put in execution vide Execution Case No. 2 of 1984 which remained pending for so many years and during that period the file was transferred from one Court to another Court. Ultimately the case was dismissed on 21.9.1999 for non- prosecution. The petitioner decree holder filed an application under Order IX, Rule 4, CPC for restoration of the said E...
K.C. Majumdar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ448Jhar
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated December 23, 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/2 case No. 1078 of 1998 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act.')2. The facts in short of the case are that the opposite party No. 2, Sri Awadhcsh Kumar Singh, Factory Inspector, Anchal No. 1 (complainant) submitted a written report on December 21, 1998 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging therein that Wood Craft Training Centre, Jojobera is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act. It was stated that in the said factory, manufacturing of the packing boxes, furniture etc. were going on and 30 workers were engaged for the said purpose. It was further staled that during the enquiry, the complainant came to know that Sri. K.C. Majumdar, wh...
Anugrah Singh and anr. Vs. Bal Krishna Lal
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR47(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order dated 7.2.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 57/95 whereby the amendment petition filed by the defendant has been rejected,3. From perusal of the record it appears that the plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 57/95 for eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit property. The defendant by filing written statement claimed title in himself stating that the suit property was settled in his favour by the owner from whom the plaintiff is claiming. However on the application of the plaintiff the suit was converted into a title suit. In the year 1997 an amendment petition was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking a relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The amendment petition was allowed giving liberty to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement. The petitioner did not file any additional written statement. Ultimately is...
Ram Chandra Kandu and anr. Vs. Aditya Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC334
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The claimants who had filed the miscellaneous appeal are the appellants herein. They had challenged the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No. 1 of 1997/11 of 1997, wherein the Tribunal had awarded the claimants-appellants, the father and mother of one deceased Santosh Kumar, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) as compensation along with interest at 12% per annum thereon from the date of application till payment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal.3. The deceased Santosh Kumar was aged about 22 years, when he died in an accident caused by a motor vehicle. At the relevant time, he was a student. The case of the claimants-appellants was that even though their son Santosh Kumar was a student, he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month from tuition and out of the said amount, the deceased was maintaining himself and also contributing to the maintenance of his parents. The Tribunal accepted ...
SaifuddIn Ansari Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1516
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution being BKSC/ RPF Post Case No. 6/98 registered under Sections 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (Herein after referred to as the R.P.U.P. Act') and also the order dated 17-2-1999 taking cognizance passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Dhanbad, against the accused persons namely Sagir Ansasri, Sukra Majhi, Hriday Chowdhury, Saifuddin Ansari, Lachhu Oraon and Lakhindar Singh.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the prosecution report in the form of complaint dated 9-2-1999 was submitted by one Sri. R.S. Prasad I.P.F./BKSC alleging therein that in the night of 3/4-2-1998 one portable generator was stolen away from Railway Medium carriage Shed, Bokaro. In connection with the enquiry of the said theft. On 13-10-1998 two outsiders namely Sukhra Majhi and Hriday Chowdhury were arrested in Unlawful possession of Railway Property, and durin...
Niranjan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC313
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.In the present application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding being C.P. Case No. 598 of 2001 and also the order dated 16.1.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby the cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.2. The petitioner No. 1, Niranjan Chatterjee, is the husband of the opposite party No. 2, Sumitra Chatterjee, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Debidas Chatterjee and Iti Chatterjee are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, whereas the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are sisters-in-law of the opposite party No. 2.3. The opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.6.2001, stating inter alia that she was married with petitioner No. 1, Niranjan Chatterjee on 18.2.1991. In the said marriage the father of...
D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. Overruled
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR477(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard all the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed off at the stage of admission. By order dated 12.12.2002 the Hon'ble Patna High Court through its Registrar General (Respondent No. 12) was deleted on the agreement of the parties that the same is not a necessary party in view of the statements made in paragraph 26 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Jharkhand High Court to the effect that it is in possession of all the materials required for adjudication of this case.2. The Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Direct Recruits) have filed this Writ Application for quashing the order dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure 7) issued by the Jharkhand High Court in its administrative side whereby and whereunder the Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 (hereinafter referred to as the Promotees) have been placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list.3. The main ground taken is that these direct recruits were declared senior by the Patna High Court after heari...
Subernarekha Coal Complex (P) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR488(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The appellant, herein was the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 1125 of 2002. The appellant is said to be a small scale industrial unit. The Appellant approached this Court with the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the full quota of coal as per the linkage order. According to the Appellant, the unit of the Appellant was grantedlinkage to the extent of 5000 MTs of coal. There was some controversy in respect of the distribution of coal and the Special Smokeless Fuel . to which directions were issued, in LPA No 618/97. On 17.8.98, the Division Bench dismissed that appeal. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. filed an appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 6317/98. By the order passed in March, 1999, the Supreme Court substantially affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge subject to the vacating of the direction to supply coal from specific collieries and directing that subject to availabil...
Cherry Enterprises Etc. and ors. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR498(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyam, C.J.1. The question raised in these cases is also covered by out judgment in LPA No. 619 of 2002. In fact, these Appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The only difference herein is that these Appellants are not small scale industries and the direction of the Supreme Court relied on in LPA No. 619 of 2002 may not directly apply though the principle will certainly control the decision. For the reasons stated by us in our judgment in LPA No. 619 of 2002, Subernarekha Coal Complex (P) Ltd. v. BCCL See 2003(2) JCR 488 (Jhr), We dismiss these Appeals also without prejudice to the right of the Appellants to establish before the respondents their claim for any enhancement of MPQ, if they are in a position to do so....
Harendra Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR668(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was a Constable. According to him, while he was not on active duty, while the wives of other members of the Border Force were coming, the petitioner was alleged to have outraged their modesty. Subsequently, on the compliant of the Commandant, the DIG constituted a Board of Enquiry. The Board of Enquiry submitted a report against the petitioner to the DIG. But it was the Commandant, who, instead of sending the report to the DIG, constituted a Summary Security Force Court. The Summary Security Force Court, after inquiry, passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner and the similarly situated persons were only demoted in rank, but this petitioner was dismissed. Arbitrariness of the respondents is also alleged by the petitioner.2. The first question is whether it was proper on the part of the Commandant to constitute a Summary Security Force Court in view of the fact that the DIG had already constituted a Board of Enquiry. The repor...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »