Jharkhand Court December 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: II(2007)ACC889
ORDER1. This is the insurer's appeal against the judgment and award dated 1.8.2003 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Seraikellaat Kharsawan in Compensation Case No. 32/1993 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,22,000 to the claimant-respondent No. 1 along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim application and on failure to pay the same penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the appellant-Insurance Company.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant-respondent No. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 5.47 lakh for 90% disability caused to him by the vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Jeep No. ORM-932. According to the claimant, on 12.9.1990 he was driving a T.V.S. Moped bearing No. BPX-5040 along with one Kailash Chandra Agrawal (AW-1, the owner of the Moped). When he was passing through the village Okari on Sini-Kandra Road, he was dashed ...
Mohan Ram Vs. Balram Ram
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR497; [2005(1)JCR373(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.7.1996 and decree dated 7.8.1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 15/92, whereby and whereunder the learned First Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj dismissed the appeal.2. While admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated :'Whether the learned 1st appellate Court and the learned trial Court erred in law in not considering the non-mention of time limit in the agreement of reconveyance for the purpose of contract under the specific performance of contract which is a discrepancy one and that the decision arrived at by the learned 1st Appellate Court considering 11 years as the reasonable time limit can be illegally construed?'3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant are the residents of same village and are neighbourers and good relations always prevailed between them. The plaintiff and the defendant a...
Ram Das Ray and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR339; 2005CriLJ1764
Harishankar Prasad, J.1. The aforesaid two Cr. Misc. petitions have arisen out of the same cognizance order dated 2.8.2002, whereby and whereunder the cognizance in the cases has been taken in PCR Case No. 48 of 2002 against the petitioners of both the cases and since the points in both cases are same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the application are that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint case being PCR No. 48 of 2000 against the petitioners and others stating inter alia, therein that on 1.12.1999 at 7 a.m. opposite party/ complainant was in his village home, co-accused/petitioner Gopal Prasad Gupta came to him and asked him to meet the petitioner/accused Ram Das Roy, who was then State Minister (Mining) as opposite party No. 2/complainant has not fulfilled rangdari tax and when the complainant/opposite party expressed his inability to meet the petitioner, Ram Das Ray then he was threatened with bad consequences by c...
Dinesh Kumar Mandal Vs. Mina Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar77; 2005(1)BLJR405; II(2005)DMC470; [2005(1)JCR378(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellant has been filed against the judgment dated 16.5.1998 passed by the District Judge, Godda in Matrimonial Case No. 4 of 1997 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby and where under the learned district Judge dismissed the suit.2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he was married with the respondent No. I/defendant (Meena Devi) in the year, 1994 according to Hindu rites and customs and after solemnization of marriage, defendant No. 1/respondent went to her Sasural and lived peacefully there for 2-3 months and thereafter she returned back to her Naihar and she, thereafter whenever went to her Sasural, left her Sasural without permission of her husband or in-laws and thereafter she used to return back to her Sasural. Once she fled away from her Sasural and she was brought back to her Sasural by Bhagalpur police. Still plaintiff kept her and wanted that she should reside in his house as his wife ...
Buta Rana Vs. Mahmood Alam
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR233; [2005(1)JCR369(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This Second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.1990 and decree signed on 23.6.1990 passed in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Giridih allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 25.7.1987 decree signed on 5.8.1987 passed by Munsif, Giridih in Title Suit No. 122 of 1985.2. Admitted case of the parties is that the plaintiff/ appellant purchased 5 decimals of land through two registered sale deeds executed in his favour by Jahoor Khan and the execution of sale deeds has not been denied by him. Admittedly he inherits the property jointly with. Yasin Khan, his brother. After the death of their father. Daimali Khan and Jahur Khan sold out of 10 Kathas, 5 Katha of land through two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Further admitted case of the parties is that both the brothers executed another sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent.3. The plaintiff/appellant filed ...
Shophia Khatoon and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR890
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This revision application has been preferred by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 7th May, 2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2001, whereby and where under the petition under Section 239 of the Cr PC for their discharge has been rejected.2. According to the petitioners Opposite Party No. 2 Shabnam Khatoon wife of Kamaluddin Ansari filed a Complaint Case No. 256 of 2001, in pursuance of which FIR was instituted as Bermo P.S. Case No. 126 of 2001 and the police completed investigation.3. After submission of charge-sheet the learned ACJM Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance against the petitioners and Kamaluddin Ansari for the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P. Act). A Criminal Misc. Petition No. 238 of 2002 was filed before this Court under Section 482, Cr PC to quash the order of cognizance but it was dismissed on 13th June 2002...
Sunita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC96
ORDERHari Shankar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.2. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party NO. 2/accused by this Court in A.B.A. No. 190 of 2002.3. The case of the petitioner/informant is that she is legally married wife of the opposite party/accused No. 2 and the marriage was solemnized on 10.5.1996 according to Hindu rites and customs. The father of the complainant/petitioner had given Rs. 51,000/- cash, 10 tolas of golden ornaments, etc. and other articles, such as T.V., clothes, bed, Palung and after 'Bidai ceremony' the complainant went to her Sasural keeping golden dreams of happy conjugal life but her all dreams shattered into pieces when she had to face greedy, cruel and heartless husband and in-laws who were not satisfied with the articles given to the complainant at the time of marriage with Prabhas Chandra Mahto. There was de...
Pandey Pradip Nath Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR421; [2005(1)JCR150(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate's Association.2. This writ application under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the FIR registered on the statement of respondent No. 3 as informant under Sections 466, 468, 471, 120B, IPC being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 485/2003, G.R. No. 2517/2003 against the petitioner on the ground that no case is made out under any of the sections so far as this petitioner is concerned.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner gave details of development leading to lodging of the FIR and also the subsequent action on the basis of FIR lending to arrest of the petitioner and subsequent release of the petitioner. It was further pointed out that government conducte...
Court in Its Own Motion Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR515; [2005(1)JCR292(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The 'background of the case' is that one Sheikh Teju, a Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) posted at Dhanbad, filed a writ petition on 10.3.2003, before this Court, which was registered as WP (S) No. 1303 of 2003. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner had challenged the Notification dated 27.2.2003, issued by the Government of Jharkhand, whereby the writ petitioner was transferred to the post of Member, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand at Ranchi. He had also made a prayer for interim order of stay of the impugned order of his transfer. The said writ petition was listed for admission before the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) one of us oh 13.3.2003 and it was likely to be taken up on that very day.2. When the said matter was taken up for admission by the learned Single Judge on 13:3.2003, an advocate of this Court. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, by producing a news paper, namely, 'Prabhat Khabar' brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge ...
Shree Ramdeobaba Steel Ltd. Pvt. Through Its Director and ors. Vs. Sta ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR508; [2005(1)JCR145(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. 461 of 2003 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 420, I PC against the petitioners after finding prima facie case on the basis of a private complaint and the enquiry made under Section 202, Cr PC and also for the entire criminal prosecution.3. A complaint petition was filed by O.P. No. 2 Avery India Limited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at. Jamshedpur against the petitioners, which was registered as C/1 Case No. 461/2003. In the complaint petition it was alleged that the complaint was having a registered office at Calcutta and its Depot at Golmuri, Jamshedpur. The accused petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in steel business and the accused petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are its Directors. In the year 1998, the accused persons (petitioners herein) approached the complainant company for purchase of one Electro Mechanical Weigh ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »