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.
Nemi Chand JaIn Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2100; [2004(4)JCR781(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. R. K. Jain learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI.2. The petitioner, who is an accused in connection with RC Case No. 2 (E)/98 (D), for an offence Under Sections 120B. 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application renewing his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected on its merit by this Court on 23.7.2004 in BA No. 2374 of 2004.3. After refusal of the prayer for bail, the petitioner moved before the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 3578 of 2004 but as it appears from Annexure P-6 that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 23.8.2004 after hearing the parties.4. Now the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the ground that some of the facts could not be pointed out before this Court at the time of hearing of his earlier bail application and the basis of the said order of this Court rejecting the prayer for bail was not correct bec...
Maharani Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR49(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the Wireless Message 'dated 6.5.2002, suspending supply of coal to it, filed the instant Writ Petition.3. The stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit was, principally, that from 6.5.2002 coal supplies had been kept in abeyance in view of the letter of the Managing Director of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure 'A' appended to the counter-affidavit). Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submits that even the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur, by his letter dated 30.4.2002, had informed the Coal Company that the State Sales Tax Registration and Central Sales Tax Registration of the petitioner had been cancelled. The specific stand of the Coal Company at paragraph 4(g) of the counter-affidavit was that coal supplied cannot be resumed ...
Hadi Ram Puran and ors. Vs. Haremohan Puran and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR12(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1992 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 20/88, whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge IInd, Saraikella dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the common ancestor, as per case of the plsintiffs, had three sons, namely, Alsi Puran, Lahru Puran and Bir Puran. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of the common ancestor. The plaintiffs represent the branch of Lahru Puran and the defendants represent the branch of the Alsi Puran and Bir Puran and genealogical table given in the plaint will show the relationship between the parties. The common ancestor of both the parties had landed properties in three villages namely Tamari, Khokro and Puran Dih and lands of these villages were recorded in old survey ...
Jamshed HussaIn and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC616; [2005(1)JCR39(Jhr)]
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The two petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.4.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, where by, in exercise of the power under Section 319 of the Cr PC these two petitioners have been summoned as accused persons to face trial.3. The facts in short are that a complaint case being PCR No. 375/2000 was filed by the Jahida Sultan @ Baby against five persons including these two petitioners for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 323, 384 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that after enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against only one person namely, Md. Kalim and not against other four persons who were named in the complaint petition and thereby processes were ordered to be issued against Md. Kalim only.4. In course of trial, when the witnesses were being examined, a petition was fil...
Yashoda Kumari (Smt.) Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR47(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Reference may be made to the order dated 30.9.2004 which reads as under :'Reference may be made to the order dated 16.9.2004 which reads as under:-'Heard the parties.The matter relates to arrears of salary. It appears that the dispute with regard to the arrears of salary has been finally set at rest by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in I.P.A. No. 172 of 2004 by judgment and order dated 24.2.2004. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Memo No. 1063 dated 28.4.2004 directed the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh to release the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioner but till date the direction has not been followed by the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh.Let this matter be listed on 23rd September, 2004.By that time, the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh must release the salary as directed the Director, Secondary Education in the letter referred to hereinabove and...
Shailesh Kumar Ganesh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC252; 2004(3)BLJR1905; [2004(4)JCR546(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the decision dated 1.12,2003 of the departmental committee recommending for allotment of tender in favour of respondent No. 5 and also for quashing the order dated 4.12.2003 issued by the Chief Engineer. Rural Development Special Range, Jharkhand. Ranchi whereby the tender allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled.2. Petitioner's case is that the respondents issued notice inviting tender for awarding as many as 46 different construction work within the District of Deoghar. Pursuant to that notice the petitioner submitted tender for the work contained in Item No. 41 and submitted relevant papers. Since the petitioner was found lowest tenderer, the work order was allotted to him vide order 2.5.2003. When the allotment order in favour of the petitioner was annulled at the instance of respondent No. 5, the petitioner knocked this Court In WPC No. 2710/2003. Consequently, work was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.8.2003 ...
Mukteshwar Kumar Das and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR46(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Although the Ranchi University has not been made a party, Mr. A.K. Mehta appeared for the Ranchi University and assisted this Court on behalf of the said University.3. There is no question of mandating Vinoba Bhave University to allow the petitioners to appear in the ensuing B.Ed. examination because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In 1987, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Government Middle School. They were sponsored for training on 19.8.1992 (Annexure-1) whereafter they were released for purposes of going back to their parent institution in their respective Schools. Thereafter the Ranchi University decided to hold the B.Ed. examinations for the Sessions 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993 in February 1994 but that examination was postponed and was subsequently held on 9th August, 1994. The petitioners were registered with the Ranchi University for appearing in the said examination for the Session 1...
Mangal Gope and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR52(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. We are once again faced with a demand from four more job seekers who placed their claim as displaced persons and desire that they should be given employment as their land and houses had been acquired and as they had succeeded in the interview and medical examinations. Similar matters came for consideration before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court which gave rise of judgment delivered in CWJC No. 2459 of 1995 (R) and MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R).3. A Division Bench of this Court of which the undersigned was a party had the occasion to deal with similar matters in LPA No. 264 of 2004 [Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto, 2004 (4) JCR 526 (Jhr)] arising out of WP (S) No. 1628 of 2003 read with Contempt Case (Civil) No. 362 of 2004. The relevant portions of the said judgment are paragraph 25 as well as the observations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. These are relevant for purposes of this case also. They are accordingly, quot...
Bhim Mahto @ Bhim Lal Mahto Vs. Budhan Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR534(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the learned Munsif Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 29 of 2003 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that several adjournments for filing the written statement were sought for on the ground that his counsel had gone abroad.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a rural cultivator and the suit is related to the agricultural land and if the petitioner is not allowed to contest the suit he shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be seriously prejudiced. According to the petitioner, there was no intentional delay on his part as he had engaged counsel but the counsel thereafter went abroad. He has been waiting for his return and owing to the same he could not file written statement on the date fixed. As soon as his counsel came from abroad he ...
Md. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR306(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 79 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No. 1090 of 2003, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 13th August, 2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Before deciding the case on merits, it is necessary to state the relationship between the petitioners and opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. L (Md. Ibrahim), whereas' petitioner No. 2 (Md. Mobarak alias Chamru) and petitioner No. 3 (Md. Mazid alias Mazlu) are the brother-in-laws (Bhaisur); petitioner No. 4 (Bibi Hazbi) is the mother- in-law; petitioner No. 5 (Bibi Salma) is the sister- in-law; Petitioner No. 6 (Md. Manir) is the brother-in-l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »