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.
Gulab Mochi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1759; [2004(1)JCR618(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the Instance of the appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.1998 and 15.09.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1997 by Shri B.N.P. Singh, Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five years for the offence aforesaid respectively. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has, however, been acquitted for the charge under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code. Other three co-accused persons were also acquitted for the offence under Section 120B and 372 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of written report (Ext. 4) of the informant PW 2, Ramchandra Ram Chandrabanshi, father of PW 13, Rinki Kumari the alleged victim of...
Associated Plates and Vessels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR523(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.10.1997 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi whereby a direction was made to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,046/-from the date of the order under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952.2. From the impugned order it appears that the same was passed ex parte as nobody on behalf of the petitioner appeared before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sahani submits that no person was present before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner when the matter was taken up but all the relevant documents had already been filed before him showing that there was no dues against the petitioner for the period from March, 1992 to February, 1995 and in support of this fact all the relevant documents were on the record before the Regional ...
Hameshwar Marandi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR520(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed Hawaldar of Bihar Police has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, whereby the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, passed an order on 12.1.1993, dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application, wherein the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. The petitioner has also challenged the order, as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application dated 29.11.1995, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner being the appellate authority.2. The petitioner holding the post of Hawaldar (sic) and was in-charge of Police picket of four armed Police personnel at Dudhmania Police picket within Bishnugarh Police Station in the district of Hazaribagh on 16.9.1992...
Md. Rizwan Vs. Sardar Niranjan Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1017; [2004(2)JCR252(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the caveators, the plaintiffs in the suit. Counsel for the appellant submits that the balance Court-fee has been paid and the other defects will be removed during the course of the day.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the plea that the defendant was a tenant of the building; that the rights of the landlord have come to vest in the plaintiffs; that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent, that he had sub-let the building and that the building was bona fide required for the own occupation of the plaintiffs. The defendant denied the subsistence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. He pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right over the building which he was in occupation or as an agent of one Dr. Mohammed Mustafa.3. The suit being one only for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & 'Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the ...
A.K. Construction and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC95; 2004(52)BLJR516; 2004(1)CTLJ487(Jhar); [2004(1)JCR531(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The only question to be decided in this case is whether respondent No. 6 has been favoured in giving the contract or not. In other words, whether the decision making process was arbitrary or not.3. The case of the petitioner is that a tender was invited by the Executive Engineer, Waterways Irrigation Division, Garhwa, being Tender No. 4/2002-03 in respect of various words which was published in the news paper on 3.1.2003. Item No. 1 related to the work in question 'Renovation of Sarswatia Irrigation Project'. Five tenders were submitted by various contractors including the petitioner and respondent No. 6. The tenders were opened on 17.1.2003. The rate quoted by the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was equal. It was found that respondent No. 6 did not submit any Sales Tax Clearance Certificate and it was not even registered under the Sales Tax Act, even then the work order was allotted to respondent No. 6 ignoring Clause 10 of the tender notice. O...
Shyam Kumar Thakur and ors. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR537(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties. As both the cases are similar they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of termination of their services issued on 24.4.1997, Annexure-4 series.3. The petitioners case is that they filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1049 of 1991 (R), for a direction to regularize their services and to give them parity in the pay scales with the Assistant Teachers of the Schools and for quashing the advertisement made by the respondents for appointment of teachers.On 8.5.1991, an order of status quo was passed. On 16.8.1991 the said application was dismissed upon the prayer for adjournment being refused. However, the same was restored. Taking advantage of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners against which they filed another writ petition being CWJC No. 1869 of 1991 (R). Both these writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common, ...
Dr. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR150(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner who is now posted as Touring Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi in the Animal Husbandly Department, gave his option for Jharkhand cadre. Curiously enough in the tentative list prepared by the respondents the name of the petitioner appears in two places. In one place he was tentatively allotted Jharkhand cadre whereas in another place he was tentatively allocated Bihar cadre. This fact was taken notice of by the State Advisory Committee who by letter dated 4.2.2003, requested the Member/Secretary to send all the relevant service records of the concerned persons including the petitioner for the purpose of finalizing their cadre allocation.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the aforesaid letter, till date, the relevant records have not been submitted before the State Advisory Committee, respondent No. 3.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that all the relevant records shall be sent, if not already sent, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›