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.
Angad Mehra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR433(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension. Learned counsel agreed that instead of asking the respondents to file a detailed counter-affidavit at this stage, it would be more appropriate and desirable if the Deputy Commissioner, Godda is directed to dispose off the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation if he so desires. Taking note of the aforementioned submissions. I dispose off this writ petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner by looking into the representation filed by the petitioner and dispose off the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While doing so, the petitioner shall be given liberty to file additional representation/detailed...
Chandreshwar Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR114(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, BDO, Ghaghra and the Treasury Officer, Gumla appeared and informed that the payment of retiral benefits including admitted Pension has been paid to the petitioner, but it was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that though there was no occasion for the authorities to look into the legality and propriety of order of promotion even prior to his retirement, but they have fixed the Pension of the petitioner in the lower scale on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the Mundari Examination. It was submitted that there is no provision to recover any amount from Pension or Gratuity, except by initiating a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. But no such proceeding was initiated by the Officers nor initiated by the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the Opposite Parties cannot recover any amount from the Pension nor can fix the pension in the lower scale of pay.2. The BDO, Ghaghra ...
Manbodh Mahto Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR238(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This public interest litigation has been preferred by the petitioner calling upon the respondents to restrain respondent No. 7 from operating the Hot-Mix Plant at plot Nos. 39 and 67 of village-Tilta, P.S Ratu, District-Ranchi on the ground that the aforesaid plant is a hazardous industry having been so declared by the Expert Committee of the Central Pollution Control Board. This case was heard from time to time and certain orders were passed. Some of the respondents earlier informed that they will adopt remedial measures to ensure that Hot-Mix Plant does not cause any pollution.2. Mr. Jerath, counsel for the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board submitted that after verification of Hot-Mix Plant in question, NOC has been given to the contractors on the basis of the present specification, as determined by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The Board has no objection, if they are now being run by the respondents of this case at the places where they are situated.3. T...
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Vs. Heavy Engineerin ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR434(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Heard in party.2. On hearing the parties, the following order is being passed for the present:-(i) The parties to the case, including HEC, State of Jharkhand and Union of India are prohibited from selling/acquiring/leasing/subleasing/transferring any land/buildings/structure of HEC without prior permission of the Court.(ii) The State of Jharkhand is directed to file affidavit and state whether they will pay a sum of Rs. 500 crores to the HEC to clear off the dues of JSEB.(iii) The HEC is directed to file an affidavit and state whether they are inclined to sell about 2,500 acres of their disposable land in lieu of Rs. 500 crores, which it may receive from the State of Jharkhand.(iv) The JSEB is directed to file affidavit and state whether they will set off rest of the dues and settle the account of HEC towards arrears of dues on receipt of the amount of Rs. 500 crores which the Company may receive from the State of Jharkhand.(v) HEC and JSEB both are dir...
Paras Nath Upadhyay Vs. Parvati Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR115(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.8.2003 passed by Subordinate Judge, IVth, Daltonganj in Partition Suit No. 38/2000 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been refused.2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed partition suit No. 38/2000 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj for a decree of partition of the properties. It was alleged, inter alto that the suit property is the joint family property and there has never been any partition by metes and bounds. It was further alleged that in the year 1950 there was a partition suit being partition suit No. 61/1950 in which the petitioner and the father of defendant Nos. 8 and 9 were the plaintiffs of the said suit. In order to defeat the interest of the plaintiff and his brother, a petition of compromise was filed on behalf of the minors without their knowledge. The said suit was disposed of i...
Bharat Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR304(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. In this Writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau whereby he sought to review the order dated 5.2.2004 passed in departmental appeal No. 6 of 2001. The order dated 9.8.2004 reads as under:-'Perused the letter of Dy. Commissioner, Palamau received vide letter No. 278 dated 2.6.2004 wherein it has been stated that impugned order in departmental appeal case No. 6/2000 has been passed ex parte. It has been further stated that statement of facts was filed vide memo No. 597 dated 3.9.2002 and the same was not considered while passing the order.Providing due opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the case is the cardinal principles of law and its breach vitiates the order as being violative of the principles of natural justice.In that view of the matter, the matter requires fresh consideration. Put up on 24.8.2004 for hearing. Inform all concer...
Ekramul Haque and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR237(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.2.2004 passed in I.E.L. P.S. Case No. 24/2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 447/323/307/34, IPC.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that informant-opposite party No. 2 has lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 13.11.2003 he was returning after opening his roja and when he reached near the house of Imamul Haque then Ekramul, Imamul, Reyajul, Sagir, Bajul and Pappu came out with hockey stick and chain in their hands and assaulted the informant on his head as a result of which he fell down and when on holla informant's lather reached, then petitioners including accused persons fled away.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that no specific allegation of assault has been levelled ag...
Rupesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR389; 2005CriLJ1802; I(2005)DMC268
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. By filing this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.7.2004, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in G.R. Case No. 301 of 2004, whereby the learned A.C.J.M. rejected the petition of the petitioners for releasing them on bail which was filed under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the police did not submit charge-sheet in the said case within the statutory period of 60 days and, therefore, the accused petitioner were entitled to be released on bail.3. The facts in brief giving rise to this application are that a First Information Report being Petarwar P.S. Case No. 42/2004, was registered on 7.5.2004 for commission of the offences under Sections 304B, 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and others.4. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 Rupesh Kumar was t...
Madho Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR392(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 81/2003, whereby and where-under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467 and 120B, IPC.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case being complaint Case No. 81/2003 stating therein that he has been in physical possession over the land since the date of purchase bearing Khata No. 1 Plot No. 298, area 0.23 decimal as well as of Plot No. 296 area 0.11 decimal and he has been paying rent since then. It is further alleged that neither Madho Mahto and Balch and Mahto have got possession over the land in question nor they have got right, title to sell the same but in a criminal conspiracy petitioner Madho Mahto and Balchand Mahto sold the land in favour of petitioners ...
Bansidhar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR310(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this application is to quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294A/467/468, IPC against the petitioners in C/1, Case No. 541 of 2003.2. The opposite party No. 2 (complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging therein that he is an Advocate and prior to his joining practice in the District Court, he was an agent of Welfare Economy Company of accused Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein), who were Managing Director and Director of the said company. Subsequently, accused Nos. 1 & 2 closed the said company and then formed a new company in the name & style of TRADE WELL FINANCE LTD.' The complainant became the Development Officer and then as Chief Development Officer in the new company. It was alleged that in course of business, the complainant collected recurring...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »