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.
Nurjahan Khatoon and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3022
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16-7-2001, passed by Sri S. H. Kazmi, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed against them under this Section.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fard-beyan (Ext. 3) of the informant Hazi Abdul Hannan Khan (PW 12). recorded on 24-8-1991 at 2.00 a.m. in the night at Malkera, Qr. No. 9 Block CZ, New Colony, Katras, by A.K. Pandey, A. S. I., Katras Police Station, Camp Malkera. On the basis of the said Fard-beyan (Ext. 3) a case was registered and formal First Information Report (Ext. 4) was drawn under Sections 302/201/34 of t...
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (Through Its Chairman-cum-managi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR551(Jhr)]; (2005)IILLJ1031Jhar
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions are by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, the employer. The Employer feels aggrieved by the awards marked Annexure-1 in the two writ petitions. The two awards relate to some workmen similarly situated. The workmen were drillers. In the first case, the question that was referred to the Tribunal was whether the drillers named therein were entitled to promotion and if so, since which date and in what scale of pay. In the second case, the question referred was whether the drillers referred to therein have been superseded in promotion and if so what relief they were entitled to and since when. The Industrial Tribunal passed separate awards in the two cases. In the first case, on going through the award, prima facie, it is seen that the relevant legal aspects that were placed for consideration were ignored and have not even been considered by the Tribunal and in the second award no precise relief has been granted even though an award has been passed ...
Eastern Tar Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC263(Jharkh)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The writ petitioner, an assessee under the Bihar Finance Act, has filed this writ petition challenging the communication, annexure 7 dated October 17, 2003, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Adityapur Circle, informing the petitioner that in terms of the Notifications S.O. Nos. 65 and 66 dated January 12, 2002, the petitioner was entitled to set-off only the sales tax paid in the State of Jharkhand on purchase of raw materials, against the sales tax paid by it on sale of finished goods and was not entitled to set-off the additional tax paid on the purchase of raw materials against the sales tax paid on sale of finished goods and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of additional tax wrongly set-off. According to the petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of coaltar (pitch) and allied products, it was entitled to the concessions held out by the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and the Notifications S.O. Nos. 65 and 66,...
Dipti Mookherjee and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR508(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In view of the short question involved in the present writ application, it is not required to state the facts of the case in detail. According to the case of the original petitioner, she is the widow of Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee. The property comprised within Municipal Survey plot Nos. 1608 and 1609 in Mouza Konka, District, Ranchi was recorded in the Municipal Survey record of rights published in the year 1929 in the name of Sir R.N. Mookherjee i.e. father-in-law of the original petitioner. Sir R.N. Mookherjee died leaving behind his only son Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee who constituted a joint family consisting of himself, his major son R.N. Mookherjee, his wife i.e. the original petitioner and two daughters namely, Gita Devi and Nita Devi.2. Further case of the original petitioner i.e. namely Ranu Priti Mookherjee is that Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee died on 4.11.1982 leaving behind the following persons who are illustrated in the following geological table...
Md. Mahfooj Ansari Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1771; [2004(2)JCR66(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.1998 and 22.09.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1991 by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of informant PW 1, Dasrath Pandit, the father of Sunita Kumari @ Munia, aged about 17 years, said to be the victim of kidnapping in this case, recorded by Shri K.N. Verma, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P)-cum-Officer-in-charge, Jharia P.S on 02.10.1990 at 10.00 hours at his residence situate at Industry Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.S. Jharia District Dhanbad regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 01.10.1990 at...
Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR58(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 03.10.2001, as contained in Annexure 10 and the letter dated 19.02.2001 as contained in Annexure-11, to the writ application whereby the petitioner has been removed from the Service.3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents, he applied for being appointed to the post of Junior Engineer in Madhupur Municipality and ultimately on being selected by the Selection Committee duly constituted for the said purpose, his name was sent for approval to the Government alongwith the recommendation of the Selection Committee and till the Government approves his appointment, he was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wage basis.4. The further case of the petitioner is that his appointment was made after fulfilling all the due procedure for appointment and his appointment was approved by the Municipal Board and, therefore, there was no occasi...
Jharkhand State Housing Board and ors. Vs. Dr. Parmanand Das Sharma an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR479(Jhr)]
ORDER1. These appeals are by the Jharkhand State Housing Board challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in WPC Nos. 3924 of 2002 and 3952 of 2002, whereby demands for enhanced payment made by Jharkhand State Housing Board against the writ petitioners, the contesting respondents, in respect of two Middle Income Group houses allotted to the respective writ petitioners were set aside.2. The writ petitioners challenged the claim for additional amounts on the ground that they were arbitrary, unreasonable and not as provided by the terms of the contract. They had a further contention that the allottes could not be made liable for the delay on the part of the Housing Board. The Board contended that the demands were only in terms of the contract and it was justifiable on the terms of the contracts involved in the writ petitions. A contention was also raised that an arbitration clause was there in the contract and therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to exercise it...
Vimla Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR83(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. This writ application is by the widow of late Uma Shankar Prasad who died in harness on 4.4.1999 while he was posted as Branch Manager in Central Cooperative Bank, Kuju (Hazaribagh), for a direction to the respondents for payment of gratuity and leave encashment along with interest @ 18% per annum, which according to her, has not been paid by the respondents illegally inspitc of the fact that she made several representation to the respondents but to no effect,2. Mr. C.S. Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Rebati Raman Kanth v. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 2000(1) PLJR 192 and in the case of Godawari Devi v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1997(1) PLJR 538 the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and leave encashment as legal due.3. On the other hand Mr. M.K Roy learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit...
Nisha Sahay Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR787]; [2004(1)JCR510(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. During the pendency of the writ application, the writ petitioner Rakesh Nath Sahay died on 17.7.2000 and, as such, in the application made by his widow Nisha Sahay for her substitution in place of her deceased husband, the prayer was allowed and now Mrs. Nisha Sahay had been substituted in place of her husband Rakesh Nath Sahay as the petitioner in the present writ application.2. In the instant writ application, the husband of the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service with effect from his due date or at least from 3.2.1989, the date from which the persons junior to him were regularised. Further prayer is for a direction to pay his legal dues i.e. arrears of salary since October, 1994 and bonus etc.3. The case of the original writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor on casual basis on 7th January, 1981 by issue of Office Order No. 28 of 1991 under the signature of Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transp...
Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR522(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. When the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though in the writ application, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, directing the petitioner to compulsory retire and also the order of the appellate authority affirming the order passed on various grounds on merit, but he is confining his argument only on the question of quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service as awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled/established against him and it was too harsh and, therefore, this Court should take lenient view and adequate/reasonable punishment be awarded to the petitioner, which may be commensurate with the charges against him.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while awarding the punis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »