Jharkhand Court August 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.
Kaleshwar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR85(Jhr)]
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th July, 1996 and 6th July, 1996 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Mangri Devi, wife of the deceased gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that On 26.8.1994 in the evening at about 4.00 p.m., the appellant Kaleshwar Ahir came to her house and asked her husband Bal Kishun Nagesia (deceased) to come to his house for doing treatment (Jharphuk) because he was not well. Her husband went to the house of the appellant at 7.00 p.m. in the evening and at about 8.00 p.m. on the same day, Gangadhar Pradhan (PW 4) came to her house and told her that appellant Kaleshwar Ahir committed murder of her husb...
Bishwanath Das and ors. and Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR766(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In CWJC No. 7859 of 1997, the writ petitioners who are 14 in number have prayed for quashing the Office Order as contained in memo No. 892 dated 28.6.1997 issued under the signature of Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary whereby the appointment of the petitioners purported to have been cancelled on the ground that all these appointments were illegal. 2. In WPS No. 3867 of 2002. five petitioners out of 14 have also moved this Court against the decision of the respondents whereby payment of their salary have been stopped. 3. So far CWJC No. 7859 of 1997 is concerned, petitioners' case is that pursuant to request of the headmaster of the schools advertisement was made for appointment on the post of clerk and pursuant to that advertisement petitioners submitted their applications and they were called for interview on 15,4.1988. Copies of the advertisement and the interview letters have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 2 series to the writ petition. After interv...
Ram Kumar Raut and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR93(Jhr)]
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with S.T. No. 39 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution case lies in the narrow compass : that on 5.5.1985 in the evening the informant Rajendra Prasad Yadav alongwith his brother Arjun Yadav (deceased) was returning from Charki godown where they had gone to make payment and also to make payment to the labourers and when they reached near the demolished house of Nunu Singh then all the accused persons alongwith one Govind Raut and one unknown person came there and have surrounded them. Out of them, the appellants Ram Kumar Raut and Shyam Shankar Raut were armed with double barrel gun, Shankar Raut was holding a pistol in his hand, Jagdish Raut an...
Md. Tahir Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1873
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. When this revision application was taken up, no body appears from the side of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, though office notes dated 8-4-1997 shows that notice had been validly served upon them and the daily cause list also shows the name of Mr. S.N. Sinha as the Advocate for them. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, this revision is being heard.2. Lower Court records have been received and perused, Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-revisionist and no body appears from the side of the State.3. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 27-9-1996 passed in G.R. Case No. 301/1985/T.R. 474/1996 by Shri Arvind Azad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate hold accused Irshad Ansari guilty of an offence under Section 325 IPC and accused Rajamat Ansari guilty of an offence under Section 324 IPC and convicted th...
Lalan Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC120
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared through Mr. M.K. Dey, learned Counsel by filing Vakalatnama. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 have not made their appearance as yet. This case has appeared for the first time and the opposite party No. 2 has appeared suo motu without service of notice.2. The question arose whether opposite parly Nos. 3 and 4 who are the sons of the complainant could be noticed. This was objected to by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 on the ground that as these persons arc witnesses in the case, which is apparent from the complaint petition Annexure-1 itself. Their status being that of witnesses having nothing to do with this quashing proceeding cannot be noticed.3. To the contrary the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted by referring to paragraph 15 of page 6 of the complaint petition (Annexure 1) that in pursuance of the decision of the arbitration the accused Lalan Prasad had to pay Rs....
Badal Toppo and Etc. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ545
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appellants preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-8-2000 passed by 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant Jivan Minj submitted a written report before the police on the basis of which, first information report was lodged alleging therein that on 11-9-1998 at about 9.30 P.M. his sister Anjela Minj had gone to the house of one Badri Prasad for witnessing Television along with her cousin sister Veena Minj. While she was returning home, the appellants intercepted and the victim Anjela Minj was taken away on the point of k...
Shivam Planners and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC144; [2003(4)JCR50(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of respondent No. 3, Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand in cancelling the tender on the ground contained in the letter dated 12.6.2003 and, thereafter, floating a fresh tender for the same work is illegal and mala fide.2. Petitioner's case is that pursuant to the tender notice dated 25.2.2003 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer for execution of five items of work, the petitioner submitted his tender papers being technical bid document and financial bid documents, On 13.3.2003 the technical bid was opened in presence of the bidders and the authorities. Respondent No. 4 then communicated to the petitioner that he has qualified in the technical bid and the financial bid will be opened in presence of the petitioner and other authorities. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole bidder in respect of the work and, therefore, after opening...
Raj Narayan Roy Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR201(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondents on 31.3.1998 but after retirement he continued the occupation of the quarter in anticipation of receiving retiral benefits. The petitioner vacated the quarter in February, 2002 and, thereafter, retiral benefits was paid in July, 2002. While making payment of retiral benefits the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 38,376/- by way of penal rent.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to realize penal rent for the reason that the retiral benefits has been paid only in July, 2002. The contention of the respondents is that the retiral benefits was payable only after submission of 'no dues certificate' and on vacation of the quarter.4. The respondents have annexed a copy of memorandum issued by the respondent-Corporation to the effect that, final -dues shall be settled only after vacating the quarter in occupation of the employee. The r...
Shiva Kant Jha @ S.K. Jha Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR349(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Application the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of nandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay retiral and other legal dues to the petitioner and further, to release him from service with effect from 31.01.1999 by accepting his offer to voluntarily retire from service in terms of the letter dated 12.10.1999 issued by Senior Manager (Personnel) addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing the letter dated 3.4.2000 as contained in Annexure-11 addressed to the petitioner and issued by the Group General Manger informing him that in supersession of all previous correspondence, the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from the service of the Company with effect from 31.01.1999 has not been accepted by the Company.2. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that in the year 1969 the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant of the respondent No. 1 for their unit at Bbkaro Steel City. He wa...
Kusum Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: II(2004)DMC497
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar in T.R. No. 266 of 2003, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205, Cr. P.C., who is an accused in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 614 of 2001, a case under Section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts in short given rise to the present application are that Smt. Sudha Choudhary lodged a complaint being P.C.R. No. 614 of 2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar against Umesh Kumar Choudhary, Aman Kumar Choudhary, Smt. Kusum Choudhary (petitioner) and Smt. Usha Rani, alleging therein that the complainant, Smt. Sudha Choudhary was married to Umesh Kumar Choudhary in the year 1998 and after the marriage she was residing in her laws' place. The allegation is that her husband at the instance of the other accused persons including the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »