Jharkhand Court October 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.
Sailesh Bhardwaj Sharma @ Sailesh Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. State of Jhark ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC202
S.K. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 389 of 1996 including the order dated 5th November, 1996, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406,420, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also the order dated 6th August, 2004, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the complainant (Smt. Mumta Sharma) seeking permission to withdraw the said complaint case has been rejected and all proceedings subsequent thereto in connection with the complaint case aforesaid, now pending in the Court of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.2. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 (Sailesh Bhardwaj Sharma @ Sailesh Bhardwaj) is the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mumta Sharma). Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the said opposite party No. 2. Beca...
Shri S.K. Toppo and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR386
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The order dated 25.11.1996 of the learned A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat as well as the entire criminal prosecution being Complaint Case No. 237/1996 are under challenge in this application whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B, 347, 352, 388 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by O.P. No. 2.2. A complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2 on 5.11.1996 against the petitioners. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on 7.11.1996 by the A.C.J.M. and thereafter the complaint case was made over to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for enquiry and trial under Section 192, Cr PC. The learned transferee Magistrate examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant under Section 202, Cr PC and thereafter took cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B, 347, 352, 388 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on 14.9.1996 the complainan...
Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Jyoti and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2041
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal at the instance of appellant-plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th February 2000 and 24th February 2000 respectively passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 2 of 1994 whereby the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro at Chas dismissed the suit. The aforesaid Title (Matrimonial) Suit was filed for dissolution as well as nullity of marriage under Sections 12(A) and 13(i)(a)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The case of the appellant who is the plaintiff at the trial stage is that marriage between appellant-plaintiff and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 1.3.1993 at Nawada according to the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage on 2.3.1993 the respondent No. 1 was brought to her matrimonial house and during her stay in her sasural, she did not talk to anybody even with the appellant-plaintiff and whenever the appellant-plaintiff wanted to talk to respondent No. 1, she looked at him with anger is if she is r...
Radha Govind Singh Nagesh and ors. Vs. Md. Anjar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC283; 2006ACJ557; [2005(1)JCR1(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since these two appeals arose out of common judgment and award, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order.2. M.A. No. 22 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Latehar in M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2003, whereas M.A. No. 78 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant, National Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in the said case.3. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.4. The appellants of M.A. No. 22 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) filed the aforementioned claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00.000/- for the death of Rajshri Nagesh in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant's case is that on 20.9.2002 the deceased Rajshri Nagesh was going to Chandwa to offer Puja along with her husband claimant No. 1 and Bodyguard by t...
Amar Nath Maheshwari @ Amar Nath Mahesh and Baldeo Prasad Vs. Union of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR381; [2005(1)JCR6(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being writ petition No. 3326 of 2000 filed by the petitioner/appellant. The writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Railway Authority inviting tenders for the work of washing of Bed Roll linen clothes for Hatia and Bokaro division of South Eastern Railway.2. The grievance of the petitioner was that although he quoted lowest rate but the respondent/Railway Authority without any reasons or notice, disqualified him with sole intention to allot the work in favour 'of respondent No. 4.3. It appears that when this appeal was taken up for admission on 16.7.2002, learned counsel appearing for the parties including respondent No. 4 agreed to constitute a two members Committee of advocates to visit the spot and inspect the plant of respondent No. 4 and submit a report. The matter was again taken...
Chotanagpur Small Scale Industries Association Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR10(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents to implement the jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 (shortly 'the policy') particularly clause 32 of the Policy by ensuring that various departments of the State Government specially Water and Sanitation Department will ensure that minimum 75% of the total order placed with respect to any tendered item for purchase of Hand Pumps by manufacturing units located within the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioner is the association of small scale industries of the State of Jharkhand. The Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand came with a tender notice inviting tenders for the supply of Handpumps and other allied products. It is alleged by the petitioner that only 33% of the total required number of Handpumps is being procured from local manufacturing units.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 6, the Executive Engineer, Monit...
Didar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)BLJR169; 2006CriLJ1594; [2006(1)JCR283(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner is facing trial for commission of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 386 and 387, I.P.C. There is no dispute of the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected up to this Court.3. Admittedly till 13-7-2004, five prosecution witnesses have already been examined during the trial.4. It appears that the petitioner, filed a fresh application for bail before the trial Court on 18-8-2004, only on the ground that sixty days has already expired from the first date fixed for evidence i.e. 8-6-2004 and the trial has not yet concluded and, as such, under the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was entitled to be released on bail. The learned Magistrate by order dated 18-8-2004, itself rejected the petition for bail tiled by the petitioner under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for the reasons that only five witnesses have been examined till date and the other important charge-sheet wi...
Lemos Cements Ltd. and ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Saraf and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR519; [2005(1)JCR154(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 1.4.1999 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code passed in Complaint Case No. 121 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that opposite party No. 1 Dinesh Kumar Saraf filed a complaint case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 23.2.1999 against the petitioners being complaint case No. 121 of 1999 alleging therein that an agreement was executed between the complainant O.P. No. 1 and M/s Lemos Cements Limited on 1.4.1998 by which, the complainant was appointed as liasoning agent of petitioner No. 1 for promoting the sales of cements manufactured by the petitioner No. 1. it was stipulated in the agreement that all payments against the supply will be made by the Account...
A. Naresh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR961; [2005(104)FLR1030]; [2005(1)JCR256(Jhr)]; (2005)IILLJ1077Jhar
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. In both the Cr. Misc. Petitions facts involved are the same and, therefore, both the applications are being disposed 'of by this common order.2. Both the Cr. Misc. Petitions have been filed .for quashing the cognizance order dated 26.8.2002 passed by learned CJM, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case Nos. 2009/ 2002 and 2010/2002 respectively.3. The prosecution case in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1529/2003 in brief is that a prosecution report has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner and one another in the Court of CJM Jamshedpur and in the said prosecution report it is alleged that some violations of Sections 12(1) and 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, Rules 21(4), 22, 25(2), 26(1), 26(2) and 26(5) have been made. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 2 has made an inspection on 15.7.2002 at about 11.45 a.m. of Graduate Engineers Hostel (Mess) Telco, Jamshedpur along with some other officers of the Labour Department and during inspection one Anup Mai...
State of Bihar Through Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Rameshwar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR366; [2005(1)JCR252(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22nd December, 1993 and award dated 19.3.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1 of 1991 and 5 of 1991 respectively whereby and where under the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj allowed both the reference cases and enhanced the quantum of compensation.2. It appears that pursuant to the notification dated 1.3.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette, LA Case No. 1 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and by another notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA Case No. 5 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons on account of Oranga Submergence Area. After issuance of notification, compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimants d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »