Jharkhand Court July 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.
Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR749(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.4.2002 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka whereby the claim of appointment of the petitioner on the post of constable has been refused and further for a direction to the respondents to produce the original master chart and other relevant papers relating to the selection made for the post of constable in the District of Dumka.2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1993 the petitioner applied for the post of constable. It appears that the petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 1697 of 2002 and this Court disposed of the same on 13.3.2002 by passing the following order :'The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable. It appears that the respondent No. 4 was directed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana, Dumka (respondent No. 3), fide his letter dated 4.5.2000 in pursuance of the order passed in CWJC No. 101...
Md. Muslim Ansari and ors. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR64(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents.2. In this writ application, the petitioners have made a prayer that they be granted employment under the policy relating to displaced persons/land oustees. They have also made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the concerned respondents to pay higher compensation to them for the acquisition oftheir land to the extent of 6.31 acres at the prevailing market rate.3. So far as the question of grant of compensation at the present market value is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the respondents have calculated the same in such a manner that it comes to approximately Rs. 10/- per decimal.4. Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the compensation awarded is approximately Rs. 15 to 16/- per decimal, which was the rate prevalent at that Lime.5. Considering...
Balram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR87(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.5.2002 passed by respondent No. 2, Secretary, Secondary Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the request of the petitioner for making payment of his salary from May, 1998 onwards has been rejected and further a direction has been issued to the Director, Secondary Education to initiate a proposal for termination of the services of the petitioner.2. Petitioner's case is that he is B.Sc. in Silk Technology. In response to the advertisement the petitioner applied and was appointed as Laboratory Assistant, and posted at S.S. High School, Kuru, Ranchi. The petitioner submitted his joining on 21.7.1993. The Director, Secondary Education, vide letter dated 9.12.1993 confirmed the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant, Sericulture. It is contended by the petitioner that he has regularly been paid salary but all of a sudden his salary was stopped...
Tata RobIn Fraser Labour Union Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR239(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. The complaint in this writ petition arises out of the inter se position occupied by Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. The petitioner has pointed out that from a decision of Labour Court an appeal lies to the Industrial Tribunal and when Presiding Officers of both the Courts are of the same rank, it causes embarrassment. The qualification for the office is prescribed in the Statute. Unless that is amended, it may not be possible for this Court to intervene on the basis of such a complaint. But that apart, except some problem that can be called egocentric, there cannot be any problem for any Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, if an appeal against his decision is decided by the Industrial Tribunal, whoever may be the person manning that position. In our view, it does not appear to be a ground for our interference with the statutory scheme now being adopted.3. What we find more substantial is the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petit...
Madhua Hembrum and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1766
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C for committing murder of Manta Kui and Jonga Kui and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for life there under and against the same, this appeal has been directed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 209 of 1992. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Kanu Hembrum gave fard bayan before the police alleging therein that on 20-9-1991 there was Jamuna Festival in the village and in the night at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons, namely, Rasika Hembrum, Madhua Hembrum, Birbal Hembrum and Chami Kui had come to the house of the informant and asked for Handia but the informant said that there is no Handia available, on which the accused/appellant Rashika Hembrum attacked on him with Bhujali which was warded off by his Palm resulting injury on the Palm. Thereafter the infor...
Ajay Kumar Tirkey Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1826
Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Tirkey, who was 1st party in the Court below, has preferred this criminal revision application against the order dated 18-11-1995, passed by Sri D.C. Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Ranchi, in M. Case No. 508 of 1989 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby and whereunder, the possession of the 2nd party (Opp. Party No. 2) was declared in respect of the disputed land, measuring 0.65 Acres of Plot No. 162, appertaining to Khata No. 39, situated at Hindpirhi, Ranchi. By the said order, the petitioner was restrained to go over the said land till an order is passed by any competent authority in his favour.2. The ancestors of Opp. Party No. 2, namely, Martin Tirkey (2nd party) were the recorded raiyats of the said land. The petitioner (1st party) claims that the disputed land was purchased by his father Bimal Tirkey through a registered sale deed dated 23-9-1939 and since then he was in possession and after the death of his fathe...
Sanjeev Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR367(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, learned counsel for the Petitioner assisted by Mr. Jitendra Shanker Singh and Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents.2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures 1, 2 and 3. By Annexure 3, a secret/confidential letter was sent to different authorities by the Commanding Officer informing that the Petitioner was a 'deserter absentee'. From Annexure 2, which are the minutes of proceedings of the summary Court Marshall, it appears that the Petitioner made a statement which is to be found at running page 52 and which reads as follows :'I have made a mistake and I have nothing more to say.'3. After the aforementioned Court Marshall proceedings, the Petitioner was inflicted with the following punishments :-A. To be reduced in Rank.B. To be dismissed from service.This order was passed on 05.06.1996. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a representation/appeal before the chief of the Army Staff but that was also rejected on 31.12.1996 and t...
Chandrika Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR657(Jhr)]
Lakshman Oraon, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceeding, including the order dated 26.10.2002, passed by the learned Sub-. Divisional Magistrate, Chatra, in Case No. 68 of 2002, whereby, he has converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of criminal Procedure, though earlier proceeding in respect of the same property and in between the same parties, initiated vide Case No. 36 of 2002, was dropped on 13.8.2002, with the observation that the opposite party may take recourse of Civil Suit, relying on a decision, reported in 2001 (1) JCR 21 (Jhr), Kangali Charan Goswami v. State of Bihar and Ors.2. It appears that regarding the land in question of plot No. 65, pertaining to khata No. 28, measuring 1.12 Acres, out of 2.40 Acres of land of Village Pachmo, Police Station - Itkhori, there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Cr...
Manju Shankar Singh Vs. Mansur Ahmad Khan
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR350(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties. The opposite party filed Title (Eviction) .Suit No. 16 of 1998 against the defendant-petitioner for his eviction from the suit shop detailed in Schedule A to the plaint under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds of personal necessity and expiry of lease. The defendant petitioner claimed that she was inducted as tenant in the suit shop directly by the owner of 'Sen Mansion' at Hirapur, Dhanbad, measuring 5' x 7', being a portion of Holding No. 2 (old) in Ward No. 4 (old) of Dhanbad Municipality and the plaintiff had no locus standi to claim himself to be the landlord of the suit shop within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act. She was never a tenant under the plaintiff and she was paying rent to the owner regularly. There was no question of any fixed term of tenancy. However, in the alternative personal necessity was also denied.2. During p...
BipIn Bihari Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC593; [2003(3)JCR510(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, against the order contained in letter No. 913 dated 7th June, 2003 issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Area, Ranchi, whereby and where-under, the Executive Engineer has been informed that the order contained in letter No. 613 dated 24th April, 2003 has been cancelled and allotted the work in favour of the 7th Respondent, M/s. Star Construction. Further prayer has been made to direct the 4th Respondent to enter into an agreement with the petitioner for execution of work in pursuance of earlier order, contained in letter No. 616 dated 24th April, 2003, whereby, it was decided to allot the work in favour of petitioner - Bipin Bihari Singh. 2. It appears that in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender (for short N.I.T.) No. 1/2002-03 dated 21st December, 2002, the petitioner purchased two tender documents and submitted tender papers for two different works as shown at Sl. Nos. 14 and 34 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »