Jharkhand Court February 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.
Hari Dada Singh Munda and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR352(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. This appeal, has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.2.1999, and 25.2.1999 respectively, passed by Sri. P.K. Jha, learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 1988, arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 54 of 1986 (G.R No. 408 of 1986), whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Sadhu Munda (PW 4), recorded by S.N. Pandey, S.I. of Tamar Police Station at Village Jhargaon on 4.11.1986 at 11.00 a.m. The informant has alleged that on the previous day i.e. 3.11.1986 in between 7.00 to 8.00 p.m. he along with deceased Ram Singh Munda had gone to attend the feast to his friend's home Sohan Kumhar on the occasion of Dipawali, After taking their feast, they were returning home and reached near the ho...
Smt. Santoshi Devi @ Madhuri Devi Vs. Sri Sadanand Das Goswami
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC301; [2004(2)JCR194(Jhr)]
Vishnudev Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant-wife has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.1999 and 19.07.2000, respectively passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 32 of 1993 by Shri M. Thakur. 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Matrimonial Suit filed by respondent-husband Sadanand Das Goswami was decreed and his marriage with his appellant wife Santoshi Devi was dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, a sum of Rs. 300/- per month was allowed as permanent alimony to the appellant for her maintenance,2. The petitioner-respondent Sadanand Das Goswami had filed the said Matrimonial Suit on 10.06.1993 under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act] for dissolution of his marriage with his appellant-wife Santoshi Devi and in the alternative for annulment of their marriage under Section 12(1)(d) of the said Act.3. The case of the petitioner-respondent,...
Sachindra Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR36(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In the connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 11462 of 2000(P) disposed of on 29th April, 2002 the Court noticed the following facts.2. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers against vacant posts in the year 1982-83. Their orders of appointment having been cancelled by the State, the petitioners moved before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 99/1985, 485/ 1985 and analogous cases. The orders of cancellation of appointment of petitioners were stayed by the Patna High Court vide its order dated 21st January, 1985/5th February, 1985 and other orders. In view of interim order of stay, petitioners continued to function as Assistant Teachers without any break. Some of the petitioners, who were untrained, were also sent for training by the State between 12th May, 1991 and 5th February, 1994. Subsequently, they were, reappointed in view of Supreme Court's direction on 4th April. 2000.3. Similarly situated persons whose services were also terminated ...
Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissio ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR476(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. According to the petitioner, the order dated 28.2.2001 passed in CWJC No. 829 of 2001 has not yet been complied with Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties with reference to paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, submits that the order cannot be complied with because the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, he has not been called for interview. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 28.2.2001, an order has been passed and it is placed at running page 23 and upon perusal of paragraph 4 thereof, It is evident that only those people were interviewed whose names were recommended by the Employment Exchange.2. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the order of this Court which was passed on 28.2.2001 is based on the order dated 1.8.2000 which was passed in MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R). He places reliance on the following paragraphs, which, according t...
Prahalad Ram and ors. Vs. Rajendra Ram and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR173(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.2.2002 passed in criminal revision No. 33 of 1998 whereby and where under the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Giridih set aside the order dated 9.1.1998 passed in case No. 4 of 1998 drawing proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC, and attaching the disputed land under Section 146, Cr PC.3. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that order dated 9.1.1998 in case No. 4 of 1998 was passed when there was one proceeding which was initiated under Section 144, Cr PC, between the parties in respect of some land and proceeding under 144, Cr PC; was finally disposed of on 13.1.1998. Thereafter, the other side preferred a revision which was numbered as criminal revision No. 15 of 1998 which was dismissed with some observation. During the pendency of revision application, a petit...
Awadh Kishore Sahay Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)BLJR700; [2004(2)JCR74(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed that he may be allowed to remove the slurry/sludge/ fine dust accumulated on his raiyati land, after being abandoned by the respondent-Company as a waste product and/or allow him to take such other appropriate steps in relation thereto as he may deem fit and proper.3. Petitioner filed a writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs in Calcutta High Court being C.O. No. 1754 (W). 1990, an interim order was passed. Ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed on 21.12.1994 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Letters Patent, Appeal was dismissed on 4.7.1995. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20537/1995 was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.9.1995.4. Petitioner's case is that the respondent-Company cannot claim the abandoned slurry accumulated on his land. The land of the petitioner has been rendered useless. The Central Government has not framed rules under Section 18 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulati...
Dilip Kumar Jha and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1783; [2004(2)JCR156(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellants has been directed against the impugned Judgment and order dated 10.8.1998 and 11.8.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1997 by Shri Hart Deo Prasad. 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Dumka whereby and whereunder all the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and each of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, one year, one year and five years for the aforesaid offences respectively.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of informant, PW 8 Parvati Hansda, an unmarried girl aged about 14 years, resident of Village-Sirsa, Police Station-Jama, District-Dumka, said to be the victim of gang rape, recorded by S.I. Sujeet R...
Manoj Kumar Munda Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3431; [2005(2)JCR387(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-3-1998 in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years.2. Prosecution case is brief is that Jaleshwar Mahto, the informant gave a written report (Ext. 1) to the officer-in-charge of Hatia Police Station stating, inter alia therein that his daughter Uma Kumari everyday used to go to quarter No. B-32/3 for learning sewing and used to return back in time, but on 16-8-1995 when she did not return by 1.00 pm. then he inquired from one Sunita Kumari, friend of his daughter Uma Kumari and in course of inquiry he came to know that his daughter-Uma Kumari was returning with Sunita Kumari after learning sewing but in the way, Manoj Kumar Munda (appellant) came before her and talked to her for sometime. ...
Jitan Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR497(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State. Inspite of service of notice the respondent No. 6 who is the contesting party neither appeared nor filed counter affidavit.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by- the Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih in case No. 174/ 85-86 whereby he agreed to the proposal/ recommendation made by respondent No. 4 and 5 namely Anchal Adhikari and Land Reforms Deputy Collector and cancelled the zamabandi which was running in the name of the petitioner.3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.The petitioner's case is that the land in question comprised within Khata No. 181, Plot No. 248 and 249 were recorded in the Revisional Survey record of right in the name of Kashi Nath Ram & Ors. being Khewat 4/3. The said land was settled in favour of Mitan Mian son of Ramjan Mian. About 60 years ago Mitan Mian died issue-less and the land was resumed by the l...
Steel City Beverages Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR258(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner In this writ application is to quash the Annexure-3 dated 13.1.1995 passed by the District Manager of Telecommunication, Jamshedpur whereby the complain of the petitioner against the bill dated 11.1.1995 (Period 1.11.1994 to 31.12.1994) amounting to Rs. 1.98.324/-has been rejected. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the Annexure-9 dated 26.5.1995 issued by the Chief Accounts Officer whereby the petitioner has been directed in pursuance of the order dated 3.1.1995 issued under the order of the respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 5,00,916/-against the bill of Telephone No. 423800 and also to quash the Annexure-2 bills dated 11.11,1994 (1.11.1994 to 31.12.1994) amounting to Rs. 1,98,324/- and bill dated 11.1.1995 (Period 31.10.1994 to 31.12.1994) (Annexure-4) amounting to Rs. 2,88,889/-.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in the case of Telecom District Manager, Goa v. V.S. Dempo and Co. and Ors., reported...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »