Jharkhand Court January 2004 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.
Noor Alam MomIn Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3065
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-5-97 passed in Sessions Case No. 513/92 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj held the appellant, guilty under Sections 366, 376 and 343 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 366 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for six months and further sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for six months and further sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 343 IPC but sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case in brief is that Milan Kumar Saha gave his written report to the Officer Incharge of Littipara Police Station on 2-6-1992 stating, inter alia, therein that his daughter was found missing from 24-5-1992 and from 24-5-1992 to 2-6-1992 he was searching for ...
Navalki Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3060
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29-4-1998 and order of sentence dated 30-4-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 126 / 1988 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellants guilty under Sections 395 and 307 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 395 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for two years and appellant Ramji Yadav is further directed to undergo RI for ten years under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for two years and sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case in brief is that Jathli Devi gave a fardbeyan on 2-4-1986 at about 7.30 a.m. before DSP Chattrapur in the local hospital alongwith her son Ram Parvesh Yadav and youngest daughter Jayanti Kumari, Sundarkalia Devi and others that on the previous night at about 1 a.m...
Mahesh Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR502(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the petitions and Mr. Pradip Modi, GP I.2. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of his transfer as contained in letter No. 1750, dated 31.12.1998 whereby he was sought to be transferred as Assistant Teacher from Murma High School to Taimara High School and further for a writ directing the respondents to treat him as Head Master. Petitioner's case is that on 7.1.1969 he was appointed as Founder Head Master by the Governing Body of the School namely, High School, Murma. On 26.2.1974, Government of Bihar accorded permission for the establishment of the said school and subsequently vide Memo No. 14721/26 dated 23.6.1977 the school was duly recognized and the petitioner's services were taken over as Head Master. Again by Notification dated 20.11.1981 the school was taken over by the Government on 2.10.1980. Admittedly, ever after taking over to the school petitioner continued as Head Master and also Drawing an...
Akhil Bharatiya Koyla Khan Bhavishya Nidhi Karmachari Sangh and anr. V ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR461(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the advertisement notifying the vacancies for various posts Including the vacancy of Coal Mines Provident Fund Inspector published in the Employment News, dated 28th December, 1996 by respondent No. 3 inviting applications for direct recruitment of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Inspector, on the ground that the same is in violation of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Employees' Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 1996 (Annexure A).3. The main case of the petitioner is that though in the Hindi Version of the Notification dated 27th May, 1996, it was provided that 50% posts are to be filled by promotion failing which by deputation and 50% by direct recruitment but in the English Version, it was provided that the post will be filled up by promotion failing which by 50% by deputation and 50% by direct recruitment. Thus, there was difference between the Hindi Version and English Version of the Notification, dated 27th May, ...
Bijay Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR528(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a clerk and the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are peons appointed by the Secretary, Project Girls High School, Deori have prayed for regular pay scale with effect from 31.12.1988 i.e. the date of their initial appointment pursuant to the letter as contained in Annexure 4, dated 12.10.1982 and also on the basis of Annexure 5 i.e. wireless message dated 14.4.1987.2. Several other writ applications were filed before this Court on similar facts with similar prayer and various orders were passed in those writ applications which have been annexed as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to this writ application. However, it appears that Annexure 8 has been passed in MJC No. 417 of 1995 (R) arising out of similar writ petition.3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has filed representation i.e. Annexure 10 on 20.8.1997 to the District Education Officer, Giridih to that effect but no action in this regard has been taken.4...
National Textile Corporation (W.B.A.B. and O.) Ltd. Vs. State of Jhark ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC19; 2005(1)CTLJ86(Jhar); [2004(1)JCR453(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2003 whereby and whereunder, pursuant to the notice inviting tender (NIT) issued by respondent No. 3 for supply of cloth material, supply order has been is-sued in favour of respondent No. 4; and for . a declaration that the specification of the cloth materials in the NIT is bad and not in accordance with the Government Circular; and for a direction for issuance of a fresh NIT after following the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, and for restraining the respondents from executing the work order during the pendency of this case.2. The petitioner has placed the following facts. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. A notice inviting tender (NIT) was published on 21.7.2003 for supply of dress materials for school girl students as per the specifications given therein. The petitioner took part in the tender. When it learnt that as per the NIT it could not quote two rates, the ...
Management of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department Vs. Jamil ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1075]; [2004(2)JCR62(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties,2. The petitioner an employee, Department of Animal Husbandry, challenged the award dated 31st August, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7/98 whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the concerned respondents workmen.3. It appears that by notification dated 12.9.1998 the Labour Employees and Training Department, Govt. of Bihar referred the following dispute for adjudication.'Whether the termination from service of Shrab Sri Jameel Akhtar, Jayarat Ansari, Md. Asgar and Md. Shafique employed as casual labour from 12.2.1991 to 31.7.1996 is justified. If not, what relief they are entitled to?'4. The case of the concerned workmen is that on 31.1.1991 they applied to the Management for their employment in the Pig Breeding Farm. Their application were considered favourably and they were appointed verbally as casual labour on daily rate basis w.e.f. 12.2.1991. They were engaged as Watchman and they served in that capacity...
Sheo Narayan Singh Vs. the Mining Area Development Authority, Through ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR110(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner substantially is that he should have been reinstated on the post of 'Encroachment Inspector' and not as an 'Encroachment Guard,' after the judgment of this Court, passed in CWJC No. 887 of 1987 (R) on 25th January, 1991 (Annexure-9). For determining this issue, it was necessary to look into the award under challenge in that writ petition. Accordingly a copy of the award dated 12th March, 1987, passed in Reference Case No. 11/1983 by the Presiding Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro was produced by the respondents and is kept on the record.3. When the petitioner was terminated, he raised an Industrial Dispute and accordingly the following reference was made for adjudication.'Whether the termination of services of Shri Sheo Narain Singh, Encroachment Inspector is legal and justified? if not, what relief he is entitled to?'4. The Labour Court held that the termination was legal and Justified. The findings recorded in par...
Manoj Kumar Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR366(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Herd Mr. Nilesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra J.C. to G.P.I.2. From Annexure-20 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is appears that the notification contained in Memo No. 2231 dated 26.9.2000 was under challenge in W.P. (S) No. 2395 of 2001 with W.P. (S) No. 2362 of 2001 with W.P. (S) No. 3995 of 2001; whereby time bound promotion given to the petitioner was cancelled and the direction was made to recover the amount paid to them in excess in view of the time bound promotion. This Court by order dated 20.1.2003 allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and quashed the notification contained in Memo No. 2230 dated 26.9.2000 so far as the those writ petitioners are concerned.3. Similar matter challenging the said very notification dated 26.9.2000 came for consideration before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2615 of 2001 and W.P. (S) No. 2649 of 2001 and this Court following the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2395 of ...
Gyannendra Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR493(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Mishra JC to GP-I.2. From Annexure-18 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it appears that the notification contained in Memo No. 2231, dated 26.9.2000 was under challenge in WP (S) No. 2395 of 2001 with WP (S) No. 2362 of 2001 with WP (S) No. 3995 of 2001; whereby the time bound promotion given to the petitioners was cancelled and direction was made to recover the amount paid to them in excess in view of the time bound promotion. This Court by order dated 20.1.2003 allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and quashed the notification contained in Memo No. 2231, dated 26.9.2000 so far as those writ petitioners are concerned.3. Similar matter challenging the said very notification dated 26.9.2000 came for consideration before this Court in WP (S) No. 2615 of 2001 and WP (S) No. 2649 of 2001 and this Court following the order passed in WP (S) No. 2395 of 2001 with an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »