Jharkhand Court April 2004 Judgments
Jibrail Mian and anr. Vs. Lalu Turi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar139; [2004(3)JCR139(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendants-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of affirmation dated 24.3.1988 and 4.4.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 47 of 1984/46 of 1987 by the District Judge, Gumla upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Gumla passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 1983 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.2. The plaintiffs-respondent had filed the said suit for declaration that the sale deed No. 1711 dated 18.10.1978 executed by them is void and not binding upon them having been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint situate in Village-Dumarla, Police Station-Gumla, District-Ranchi (now Gumla).3. The case of the plaintiffs-respondent, in brief, is that Buddu Turi, Mutari Turi and Thuia Turi, all sons of Bishun Turi stand jointly recorded in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. Shailendra Narayan Acharya
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR206(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This is a revision filed by the defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The plaintiff, the landlord of a building, sued the defendant invoking Section 11(1)(e) of the Act. The case of the plaintiff was that on 6.8.1997, an agreement of lease for a term of 11 months was executed reserving a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. The lease was for a fixed term. On expiry of the term, on oral request, the defendant refused to vacate the building. A notice dated 8.8.1998, was sent calling upon him to vacate and the defendant, having not vacated, the suit was filed.3. It appears that the defendant was not paying the current rent of a portions of the rent that was in arrears. Therefore, on 30.6.2000, the Court passed an order calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The amount was not paid within the time originally fixed. The Court extended the time on mo...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR551(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner claiming his reinstatement on the ground that one Lakshmi Prasad Tiwary whose case stood on identical footing as that of the petitioner has been granted the benefit of reinstatement in service but the case of the petitioner is not being considered and thereby he is being discriminated though he has made several representations.3. It appears that the Central Bureau of Investigation has instituted a case under Sections 309 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in which charge-sheet was submitted against six accused persons including the petitioner and one Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari. It was alleged that the petitioner Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari connived and entered into criminal conspiracy by helping one Ratan Aluminium Industries, Muzaffarpur to lift more Coal than the allotted quantity. The Special Judicial Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. Reena Yadav and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC281
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This criminal revision application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 9 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the Court below was pleased to award maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of opposite party No. 1 (wife) and opposite party No. 2 (daughter) i.e., Rs. 1,250/-each.2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party No. 1 (wife) left the petitioner several times and remained in her parents' house. She deserted the petitioner for no reason.3. Smt. Reena Yadav who was present in pursuance of Court's order denied the allegation. She explained the reasons to remain separately with her daughter including the rough behaviour of the petitioner.4. There being no illegality, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the order but on 22nd April, 2004 the Counsel for the petitioner made following submission:'Counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR462(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. The appeal has asisen out of the judgment dated 7.8.1995 and decree signed and sealed on 26.8.1995 passed in Money Suit No. 15/89. whereby and whereunder the learned Sub-Judge III. Jamshedpur decreed the suit on contest against the defendants, who are appellants here.2. The only point taken in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants is that rate of interest has been charged at a very heavy rate and the learned Court below has been pleased to allow interest at that very rate, which is a contractual rate but has also simultaneously awarded the same rate of interest pendente Ute and future. The learned counsel further submitted that though an agreement In between the plaintiff-respondent and appellants-defendants arrived at and some loan amount was sanctioned to the appellants and some amount was even paid to the appellants and at the time of agreement, rate of interest was also agreed upon @ 12-1/2%. The appellants filed written statement but did n...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Prasad Vs. Canera Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR431(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 24.7.1995 and decree signed and sealed on 5.8.1995 passed in Money Suit No. 13/89, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub-Judge III, Jamshedpur decreed the suit on contest against the defendant, who is appellant here.2. The only point taken in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that rate of interest has been charged at a very heavy rate and the learned Court below has been pleased to allow interest at that very rate, which is a contractual rate but has also simultaneously awarded the same rate of interest pendente lite and future. The learned counsel further submitted that though an agreement in between the plaintiffs-respondents and appellant-defendant arrived at and some loan amount was sanctioned to the appellant and some amount was even paid to the appellant and at the time of agreement, rate of interest was also agreed upon @ 12-1/2%. The appellant filed written statement but did not pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Mandal Vs. the General Manager, Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR137(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure 8) passed by the Assistant General Manger-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby, the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of dismissal from the Bank Services with effect from 27.4.2001 without back salary in terms of Clause 21(iv)(a) of the 6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Peon-cum-Bill Collector in Allahabad Bank, Gomo Branch since 28.3.1970. He was deputed for Inward Cash Remittance from Park Market, Dhanbad Branch, along with Head Cashier, on 1.7.1997 while returning from the Park Market Branch with a cash of Rs. 3,00,000/-the cash was looted away by Dacoits near Paharpur. The Head Cashier reported the matter to the Police and FIR was registered under Sections 395 and 397. IPC. The petitioner was also arrested in the said case and was remanded to jail custody. After investigation c...
Tag this Judgment!Baidnath Mahto and ors. Vs. Jadu Mahto @ Jadunandan Mahato and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR274(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.1.1989 and 9.2.1989 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1984 by Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 153 of 1981 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs-appellant have filed the said suit for declaration of their raiyati right and title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land situate in Village-Dhokhra (No. 12), Police Station-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad fully detailed in Schedule-B of the plaint. 3. The case of the plaintiffs-appellant, in brief, is that Raja Shiva Prasad Singh was the proprietor in respect of 82.61 acres of land situate in Village-Dhokhra and he granted permanent tenure right in respect thereof of one Bhola Prasad Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Umeshwar Upadhyay Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR130(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure 10) by which the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur) discharged the petitioner from the post of police constable in pursuance of Departmental Proceeding No. 31 of 2002. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 5.11.2002 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Inspector general of Police, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi) by which, in exercise of powers under the appellate jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also makes a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his entire dues of salary from 20.1.2002 to 8.4.2002 (i.e. period of suspension) and from 21.6.2002 till date together with a consequential order that he should be posted at a suitable place on the post of a Constable.2. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that in the year 1980, th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Barai Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3021; [2004(3)JCR107(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. H.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned SC-II for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Raj an Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioner has filed the instant contempt application for violation/non compliance of the order dated 14.03.2002 passed in CWJC No. 4970 of 2001 as well as for violation of the order dated 05.05.2003 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 643 of 2002.3. It is seen that by order dated 14.03.2002, this Court had disposed off the writ petition with a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to pass a reasoned order upon the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 03.05.2003 but it was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereafter a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 643 of 2002 was filed. On 05.05.2003, the contempt application was disposed off with the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »