Jharkhand Court March 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.
Md. AmIn and anr. Vs. Md. YasIn @ Yasim Mian and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR255(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of defendants-appellants against: the impugned order dated 5.3.2003 by Sub-Judge VIII in Title Partition Suit No. 41 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petition of the plaintiffs-respondents to appoint receiver in respect of the suit property was allowed, though the said impugned order does not speak regarding the appointment of any receiver therein. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit property is the self-acquired property of original defendant Abdul Kadir, the natural father of the parties to this case and the respondents cannot have any right and title in respect thereof in the life time of Abdul Kadir and, therefore, the question of any appointment of receiver does not arise in this case.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the construction was made on the self-acquired land of Abdul Kadir ...
Binod Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR406(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.3.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 171/95, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas held both the appellants guilty under Section 376, IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for ten years and appellant Shanti Mahto was further held guilty under Section 323, IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months but sentences, in case of Shanti Mahto, were directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.3.1995 at 12 noon Namita Kumari (informant) and her niece Patia Kumari had gone near Barabandh P.S. Chandankiyari for collecting cow dung. While they were collecting cow dung in a basket (Tokri) appellants Shanti Mahto and Binod Mahto came there and showed money to them and thereby tried to yield them or induce them to yield to their carnal desire but both the girls refused to yield to their car...
Rupan Sonar and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR409(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both these criminal appeals (Cr. Appeal 189 of 1997 and 198 of 1997) arose out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1989, whereby and where under the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih held the appellants of both the appeals guilty under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for one month. All the appellants have further been found guilty under Sections 147 and 323, IPC and they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and appellant Laxmi (Lachhami) Sonar is further held guilty under Section 313. IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for six months. However, all the sentences were directed to run c...
Bikas Kumar Sahai, Vs. Giridih Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR234(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. All the above three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In all the three writ petitions the circular dated 2.2.2001, final selection list for promotion of the candidates from Scale I to Scale II dated 9.10.2001 and the letter dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Giridih rejecting the representation of the petitioners are under challenge and have been annexed as Annexures 2, 4 and 8, respectively in all the three writ petitions.3. The facts of W.P.(S) 1284 of 2002 is that the petitioner presently holding post of Manager (Personnel) in Scale I Grade in Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The case of the petitioner is that on 1.1.1996 a seniority list of the officers working in the . Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank was published under the signature of the Chairman, Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank in which the name of the petitioner's figure at Serial No. 7. On 21.6.2001 a circular as cont...
Ghanshyam Prasad Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR523(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The amendment application filed by the petitioner dated 22.7.1997, which was directed to be heard at the time of final hearing is allowed and the amendment application is being treated as part of the main writ application.2. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the alleged misconduct in dereliction in duty and then after submission of the Enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority by order as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application, dated 10.10.1996 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. It appears that after the submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 18th of October, 1996 challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer on various grounds including that he was not supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Report. From perusal of Annexure-12 i.e., the order of the disciplinary authority, which was passed on 10.10.1996, it a...
Khitish Chandra Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR522(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 11.2.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 419 of 1998 whereby and whereunder cognizance under Sections 402, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken.2. Case of the petitioner is that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint case bearing No. 419 of 1998 alleging therein O.P. No. 2 who is the Honorary Secretary of a Registered Society, wanted to purchase some land from the petitioner No. 1 and in pursuant to that, entered into an agreement on certain terms and conditions with petitioner No. 1 and in pursuant to the agreement, O.P. No. 2 gave Rs. 2,25,000/- to the petitioner No. 1. But inspite of receiving that much of amount, petitioner No. 1 did not execute sale deed in favour of the society and that is why this case has. been filed on the ground that from the very beginning, petitioner No. 1 wanted to cheat O.P. No. 2.3. Learned counsel for the petition...
Dr. Heem Bachan Sahu and ors. Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1014; [2004(2)JCR214(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission to hold fresh interview for recommending the names for appointment/deputation on the post of Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and for quashing the recommendation dated 15.3.2003 sent by the Commission whereby name of respondent No. 6 Dr. K.K. Srivastava and Dr. A.K. Srivastava only have been recommended for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education.2. Petitioners' case is that they are holding the post of University Professor and/or Reader in the different department of Ranchi University. The post of Director, Higher Education in the erstwhile State of Bihar was always occupied by University Professor on the basis of appointment/deputation from teaching cadre of the University. In 2001 by Notification dated 1.6.2001 respondent No. 6 was appointed on deputation as Director, ...
Neeraj Prakash NaraIn and ors. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR7(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to absorb them in the Material Management discipline from the date of their completion of one year of probation in the Material Management discipline in view of the provision in Common Coal Cadre and the circular issued by Coal India Ltd.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. Petitioners' case is that they were promoted In the year 1994 and 1996 in E-5 Grade in the Executive Cadre. On 13.4.1998 the General Manager, Coal India Ltd. issued an internal circular inviting applications from different employees of different discipline for transfer/movement to Material Management discipline called as horizontal movement. Petitioners being fully qualified applied for horizontal transfer to Material Management discipline in pursuance to the aforesaid circular and their cases were duly recommended by the appropriate authorities. It is contended that th...
Ranjan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR508(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 3 confiscation case No. 9/99 whereby and whereunder the 'Kahtal' and 'Gambhar' logs were confiscated with a direction upon the respondent No. 4 to auction the same. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 18.5.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Confiscation Appeal No. 11/2001 dismissing the appeal which the petitioner had filed against the aforementioned order dated 9.7.2001.2. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the 'Kathal' logs in favour of the petitioner.3. The facts which are relevant to be taken note of the are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Khunti Timber. He obtained a license in the year 1996 under Section 4 of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation Rules, 1993 which was registered as license No. 66/96 (Annexure-1). The petitioner states t...
New United Timber, a Proprietorship Firm Vs. State of Jharkhand and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR49(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3279 of 2001 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same was non-speaking and no reason was given for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 14.8.2001 while disposing of this writ petition held that since the order of the appellate authority was non-speaking one and no reason was given to reject the appeal and therefore the order passed by the Appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority fir its afresh decision after hearing the parties by a reasoned order.3. Thereafter the appellate authority by order dated 2.1.2002 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition rejected the appeal after hearing the parties on the ground mentioned therein which is under challenge in this writ petition in the appellant authority, therefore, the order of the appellate authority is bad i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »