Jharkhand Court November 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.
Badri Prasad Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Rabindra Nath Keshri
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR152(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2004 passed in Title (Eviction) No. 274 of 1980 by which the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has struck off the defence of the defendants; this writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the said order dated 8.8.2004. By the impugned order, the Court below has taken notice of an alleged default in payment of rent of the month of December, 1989 after about 15 years, on the sudden rise of the plaintiff from his deep slumber over the issue. The suit is being seriously fought out since the year 1980, i.e. for more than two decades and the same has ultimately reached to the final stage, after the direction of this Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.2. The plaintiff, at this stage, has swung into an action taking up the said sale controversy of the year 1989 which has culminated into the impugned order of striking off the defence of the defendants, disarming them completely in the legal battle, without considering the...
Kamla Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3063; I(2005)DMC877; [2005(1)JCR389(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.10.2004 passed in G.R. No. 605 of 2004 arising out of Adityapur (R.I.T.) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2004 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the police has not submitted charge-sheet within statutory period of 60 days from the date of arrest.2. The case of the petitioner-accused is that first information report was lodged with the Adityapur police station being Adityapur (R.I.T.) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2004 under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.3. It is submitted that the petitioner Kamla Devi was taken into custody on 23.8.2004 but charge-sheet was not submitted even after expiry of statutory period of 60 days and, therefore, the petitioner is e...
Moti Jhari Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India Lt ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR128(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants-appellants- appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the Additional District Judge VIII, Dhanbad, dismissing the appellants' appeal.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit praying reliefs for eviction and realization of arrears of rent and damages on the ground that defendant is the lessee and he has violated the terms of the lease making himself liable for forfeiture of the tenancy. The defendant contested the suit stating that the lease was created by terms of the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 237 of 1953 comprising express conditions. The defendant has not disputed the terms of the lease and relationship of lessor and lessee. According to the defendant, he had been regularly paying rent to the plaintiff but the same were not accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant thus contended that he has not defaulted in payment of rent, rather the officers of the plaintiff-company went on ...
Ashok Kumar Mujoo and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1795
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23rd December, 2002 passed in R.C. Case No. 20 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Ranchi, held the appellants of all the three appeals guilty under Section 120B/409 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 120B, IPC and two years under Section 409, IPC each with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for three months each. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor...
Adivasi Raksha Manch Through Its President Vijay Oraon Vs. State of Jh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR260(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this application for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for their alleged willful non-compliance of the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 844/2001. The order dated 8.5.2001 reads as under :'In view of categorical statements made in paragraph 11 of the repondents' counter affidavit, we dispose of this writ application accordingly.'2. It appears that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner by way of Public Interest Litigation for a direction upon the State-respondents to transfer those doctors who have been posted in different districts for more than 8 years. In the writ petition the respondents-State filed counter affidavit in which, in paragraph 11, it was stated that the Government doctors who have been posted in different districts for more than 8 years will be transferred by June, 2001. On the basis of said statement the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order ref...
Gaur Karmkar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC50; [2005(1)JCR249(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. In these two writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved the same have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.3. In W.P.C. No. 2961 of 2004, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in the letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamshedpur, whereby he has cancelled the contract for transportation of foodgrains and invited open tenders for the purpose of transportation of foodgrains for the remaining period of the contract.4. In W.P.C. No. 5465 of 2004, the petitioners have sought for a direction upon the respondents to complete the process of. allotting contract for the transportation of foodgrains.5. The facts which are not in dispute are that in the year 2001-02 a tender was invited by the respondents for transportation of food grains for the District Rural Development Agency. Many persons submitted their tenders an...
Allahabad Bank and anr. Vs. Mecon
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar54; II(2005)BC387; [2005(1)JCR265(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1lth February, 2003 and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed in Money Suit No. 83 of 1996 whereby the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Ranchi decreed the suit.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that the Regional Manager of defendants, by his letter dated 20.2.1992 requested the plaintiff-MECON Company to enlist them as bankers of the plaintiff and requested for opening an account with them. After discussions held on 26.2.1992 with the General Manager, Deputy General Manager and Regional Manager of the defendants about specific requirement of Banking Services, the defendants, vide their letter dated 27.2.1992 intimated their acceptance to provide the following services on opening an account with them.(i) Cheque received from the plaintiff would be given instant credit without any charge.(ii) Remittance to plaintiff s outstation branches would be done free of cost.(iii) Cash would be remitted to plaintiffs offi...
Mukhtar Ahmad @ Mokhtar Ahmad and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2823; [2005(1)JCR485(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482, read with Section 407(1)(C)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.3.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 20 of 2003 and/or in alternative for transfer of the said Complaint Case No. 20 of 2003 pending in the Court of Shri R.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madninagar at Daltonganj.2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the basis of anonymous letter that stolen jeep No. WB 428 9029 involved in Garhwa P.S. Case No. 205 of 1999, dated 15.12.1999 under Section 379, IPC, by its owner Mukhtar Ahmad is stationed near the house of one Kariman Mian bearing number plate of BR 15P 0427 and on verification, the aforesaid jeep was found stationed on the road in front of the house of one Pradeep Singh and Kariman Mian on inquiry stated that he had purchased the jeep for a price of Rs. 1,00,000/- fr...
Sharda Construction Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR786(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application is directed, against the order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the learned Chief Justice of this Court in AA Nos. 3 and 5 of 2004 in purported exercise of power Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') whereby the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator has been rejected.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The petitioner-firm was allotted three contracts relating to widening of road at National Highway No 23 at different stages. These works were identified as job Nos. 515, 516 and 538. Petitioner's case is that it completed both the works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondents-authorities, but due to some poor sanctioned specification in the agreement itself, the construction work which was carried out, subsequently became damaged and petitioner was directed to repair the same even after the lapse of liability period and...
Maheshwari Brothers Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar42; 2005(1)BLJR369; [2005(1)JCR116(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application is directed against the letter No. 964 (Confidential) dated 27.7.2004 purported to have been issued by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the basis of which respondent No. 4 Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur stopped payment of cheque issued by respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Jamshedpur for a sum of Rs. 2,62,51,869/- and also for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount under the aforesaid cheque.2. Pursuant to the tender notice invited for construction of Four Lane road in Adityapur Kandra Road, 'petitioner being lowest bidder was awarded with the aforesaid construction work which commenced with effect from January, 2004. Petitioner said to have completed substantial portion of work and the Road Construction Department on being satisfied with the work executed by the petitioner passed the bill submitted by the petitioner and a cheque of Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »