Jharkhand Court July 2003 Judgments
Smt. Gulabasi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR41(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding and the order dated 23.7.1994 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 40/1993-94 whereby the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa purported to have accorded sanction for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners and their vendor on the objection raised by respondent No. 7 now deceased. A copy of the order sheet of the Miscellaneous case has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ application.2. Mr. N'.N. Tiwary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order and the entire proceeding as being wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that Jamabandi once opened in pursuance of a judicial proceeding and become final, the same cannot be cancelled in a subsequent proceeding, the entire proceeding and the impugned order is hopelessly barred by the principle of res judicata and the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Shausrabh Vs. Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR551(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr, Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the merit list published by respondent/Board regarding the Matriculation Examination of 2001 held in March, 2001 and to declare the petitioner as topper securing first position with 607 marks in matriculation examination and further for grant of compensation to the petitioner for mental pain and agony.3. Petitioner's case is that he is a good and bright student and appeared in annual matriculation examination held in March 2001 with Roll Code 03101 and Roll No. 0576. It is stated by the petitioner that after the result was declared, mark-sheet was Issued to the petitioner showing that he obtained 607 marks and stood top securing highest marks. Surprisingly in the new item published on 8th November, 2001- in Prabhat Khabar petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 4 showing 5...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudayal Satyanarayan and ors. Vs. Jagannath Poddar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR171(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard, Plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit No. 8 of 1997, under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, against the defendants. On 15,7.2003 the plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants filed objection (Annexure-1) thereto. The trial Court, however, by impugned order dated 15.7.2003 rejected the defendants' objection and under Order 18, Rule 4(3) allowed the plaintiffs cross examination, as a witness in the suit, to be recorded by Commissioner. In my view, the learned Munsif, Chaibasa rightly did so.2. Order 18, Rule 4 has been introduced by way of amendment in the Code with effect from .1.7.2002. Under Sub-rule 4(1) the plaintiff was entitled to file examination-in-chief on affidavit and thereafter it was Court's discretion under Sub-rule 4(3) regarding recording of her cross-examination either in Court or by Commissioner.3. Order 16 Rule 1 provides for f...
Tag this Judgment!Anupama Roy Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1899; [2003(3)JCR548(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 18.8.1994 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 17/1992 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 27.12.1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 17R-15/1986-87 and 22R-15/1987-88, and directed for restoration of the land out of plot No. 633 of khata No. 55 situated at village Kokar, P.S. Lalpur, district-Ranchi under the provisions of Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (shortly CNT Act).2. The facts of the case lie in a narrowcompass :Respondent No. 5 who is the member of scheduled tribe filed an application against the petitioner under Section 71-A of the CNT Act for restoration of three and half kathas of land of R.S. plot No. 633, khata No. 55 situated at village Kokar, Ranchi on the ground that he has been dispossessed from the said land. The restoration application was contested by the petitioner stating, inter al...
Tag this Judgment!Nawal Kishore Mishra Vs. Ariel Mihsra and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR299(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Mr. P.R. Bhagat, Advocate, was present on behalf of opposite party No. 1 on 20.6.2003 and was also heard and the revision application was disposed of on the said date, but his name was not typed for O.P. No. 1. It is pointed out that inadvertently certain typographical errors were committed in the order, namely, for the opposite party the word 'none' was typed and in the 1st and 2nd line of the order Partition Suit No. '114 of 1982' was typed '14 of 1982' and date of compromise petition was typed as '16.2.1986' in place of '16.12.1986'. These typographical errors are corrected. Consequently certified copy of the order be also corrected accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Tata Cummins Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR52(Jhr)]; [2006]145STC323(Jharkh)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J1. The question arising for a decision in this writ petition is whether the Tata Cummins Ltd., petitioner No. 1 herein, is entitled to the benefit of the notifications issued by the Government of Bihar on 22.12.1995 as SO Nos. 478 and 479. While petitioner No. 1 claims that it is entitled to the benefit of those notifications, the State of Jharkhand contends that it is not entitled to that benefit.BRIEF HISTORY:2. A substantial extent of land was held by the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (herein after referred to as TISCO) under the State of Bihar on lease. As of now, the lease has expired and negotiations are on between TISCO and the State of Jharkhand. A portion of that extent was sub-leased by TISCO to the Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (TELCO) for a period of 99 years. Subject to various disputes that had cropped up consequent upon the expiry of the lease in favour of TISCO, the position is that the said extent of land is held by TELCO on...
Tag this Judgment!Manjura Bouri Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR497(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal has been directed by the sole appellant named above against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2001 passed by Shri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge, Dumka at Camp Jamtara whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan, Ext. 1 of PW 6 Durga Dasi, the informant and the alleged victim of ravishment of this case, recorded by SI. Shri B.K. Choudhary on 9.6.1997 at 16.25 hours at Binda Pathar Police Station regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 8.6.1997 at 16.00 hours at the bank of Dhoba Pond east of the village Simaldubi, P.S. Binda Pathar, District Dumka (now Jamtara). The case was instituted by drawing a formal FIR on 10.6.1997 at 16.15 hours.3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 6, Durga Dasi, the informan...
Tag this Judgment!Ruplal Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR143(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the order No. 1247, dated 11th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and whereunder in exercise of power conferred under Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, suspended the petitioner in contemplation of a departmental proceeding.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has got an unblemished service record and has not committed any illegality as a District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi in Registration of any deed presented before him. He endeavoured to his duty diligently and lawfully through out his tenure and exercising quasi judicial functions under the Registration Act, 1908.The ground to challenge the order of suspension is that the order of suspension is by way of punishment issued at the instance of 6th respondent, Shri Madhu Singh, Minister, Land Revenue and Registration Department...
Tag this Judgment!Ghuilu Gope and anr. Vs. Mohan Ahir and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR751(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendants-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1988 and 3.5.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 34 of 1980/13 of 1981 by Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, Sub-Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree dated 30.1.1980 and 9.2.1980 respectively passed by Munsif. Gumla in Title Suit No, 46 of 1973 was reversed. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed aforementioned suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 11.4.1972. 4.7.1972 and 7.11.1973 executed by defendant No. 4, Lachman Ahir (who died during the pendency of the suit) in favour of defendant Ghuili Gope along with Pusa Gope @ Tupha Ahir in respect of Schedule A and B land as well as in favour of defendant Gandura Sahu in respect of Schedule C land of khata No. 28 situate in village Golmer, P.S. Palkot, District Ranchi (now Gumla) are void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs-respondents. The case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Prasad Pathak and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1843; [2003(3)JCR734(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of plaintiff-appellants against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.7.1988 and 18.7.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1987 by Shri Jugal Kishore Prasad, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the said appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 by the 1st Additional Munsif, Daltonganj. 2. The plaintiff-appellants had filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 for declaration that the defendant-respondents have no right to demolish any portion of the construction existing on plot No. 82 of khata No. 17 as well as on plot Nos. 83, 84 and 85 of khata No. 35 of village Badaulla and the defendant-respondents have also no right to construct the road over the aforesaid plots besides restraining them by issuance of permanent injunction from demolishing the said house and from constructing road over the same. 3. The case of the plaintiff-appella...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »