Jharkhand Court April 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.
Ganesh Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1035; [2004(2)JCR443(Jhr)]; [2004]55SCL662(Jhar)
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr PC the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and the order dated 16.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur in C.I. No. 1152 of 2000 whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 630 of the Company's Act against the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner was in the service of opposite party No. 2 Company and while he was in service he was extended the facility of residential accommodation since 1993. Petitioner's service was terminated by the Company with effect from 6.10.99. The Company thereafter asked the petitioner to vacate the residential quarter since he ceased to be in employment of the Company Inspite of notice and reminders, petitioner did not vacate the premises and thereby he alleged to have committed offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act by wrongfully withholding the said premises which is the property of the Company.3. Learned counsel fo...
Kamal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR453(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The petitioner in WP (T) No. 5220 of 2002 on thefile of this Court are the appellants. Theyclaim to be the owners of a building knownas Ratan Talkies. According to them, theyhad a licence for exhibiting cinematographfilms. They let out the premises to a firmknown as S.N. Ganguly & Company. According to them S.N. Ganguly & Company had the liability under the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act, 1948, to pay the entertainment-tax in respect of the filmsexhibited in Ratan Talkies. The appellantsfiled a suit for eviction against S.N. Ganguly& Company as T.S. No. 2/95 on the pleathat the partnership had defaulted in payment of rent and had also breached the terms of the tenancy. It appears that theappellants had also objected to the renewalor grant of any license under the CinemaRegulations Act to S.N. Ganguly & Company. It is also seen that S.N. Ganguly & Company defaulted in payment of entertainment-tax due under the Entertainments Tax Act. Taking the position that ...
Ramjee Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR547(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi and also for quashing the order dated 7.12.2001 passed by the Secretary Transport, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-8) whereby the claim of the petitioner for exemption of tax for the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.10.2000 with regard to the vehicle bearing registration No. BHM No. 6755 was rejected.2. The grounds taken by the petitioner for the said tax exemption is that the vehicle in question required major repairing work and therefore, on 30.6.1997 the petitioner surrendered all the valid documents i.e. registration certificate, tax token, fitness certificate, permit and insurance certificate along with affidavit and application in 'Form J' as required under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicle Act in the office of District Transport Officer, Sahebganj.3. From perusal of the Annexure-7 i.e. order dated 8.5.2...
U.P. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR550(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2002 as contained in Annexure- 8, whereby the petitioner has been directed to proceed on posting on transfer.2. It is stated that by issue of Annexure-4, the order dated 4.4.2002, the petitioner was transferred to CISF Unit NALCO at Angul in Orissa. The petitioner, vide his representation dated 8.4.2002 to the respondent No. 2 stated in detail as to how he was being harassed by frequent transfers. On the basis of the representation filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was constituted and the order of transfer was stayed. It is further stated that the transfer order dated 2.4.2002 and the order dated 4.4.2002 were cancelled.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the enquiry is still pending and the earlier order of his transfer dated 2.4.2002 and 4.4.2002 have already been cancelled but the respondents in order to harass him have again by issue of Annexure-8 dated 26.4...
No. 974700210 Ex. Const. C. Om Prakash Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR118(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, a CISF Personnel, was proceeded departmentally on the charge of the gross misconduct on the ground that while filling up the attestation form he knowingly suppressed the factual information regarding his involvement in police case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code which was detected at the time of verification of his character and antecedent. He was also arrested in the said criminal case which was highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of an Armed Force of the Union. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was Tamil and was only Matriculation and therefore, he was not conversant with either Hindi or English at the time of filling up the said attestation form. In fact the said attestation form was filled up on the instruction and advice by his ustad. Therefore, he had no intention to suppress any fact. In the departmentally enquiry the charge against the petitioner was found to be proved and consequently on the basis...
Kumar Bhenu Gopal Vs. the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Exam ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar110; [2004(3)JCR311(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant, who was the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 4589 of 2003 approached this Court complaining that he had been denied admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course illegally and he has been deprived of the seat justifiably due to him based on the marks obtained by him in the Common Entrance Examinations.2. On the basis of the duplicate admit card, the petitioner appeared in the examination and according to him, he secured rank No. 25. He thereafter, appeared for Counseling, as invited, but at the Counseling it was found that he did not have the residential certificate for 15 years, as required, and was, therefore, given time to produce such a certificate, that was on 3.9.2003. On his request, an additional day's time was granted to him to produce the certificate and he produced the certificate on 5.9.2003 but no admission slip was given to him that day. Next morning, he found a Newspaper report that an FIR has been lodged against some 16 candidates, who were seeking admissio...
LobIn Modi and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. a Govt. Company ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR384(Jhr)]
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners approached this Court earlier, in CWJC No. 1844 of 1999 (R) making a grievance that although they alongwith others were appointed on daily wages basis as displaced persons in 1991 and some of them have been regularised in their services but case of the petitioners have not been considered.3. This Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 14.01.2000 directing the petitioners to approach the Steel Authority of India Ltd. by filing a representation for redressal of their grievance. The said order is annexed as Annexure-6 to the present writ application.4. Pursuant thereto the petitioners filed a representation before the Steel Authority of India Ltd. which has been disposed of by a reasoned order as contained in Annexure-8 by the General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant. From perusal of the order of the General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant,...
Bhola Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1296; [2004(3)JCR52(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties,2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17th November, 1998 passed by the Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the petitioner has been removed from service.3. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed on the post of Clerk in the office of District Education Office, Sahebganj. The said letter of appointment was issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi. In 1990. the salary of the petitioner was stopped on the ground that appointment of the petitioner was itself illegal in as much as Regional . Deputy Director of Education was not appointing authority. In 1993 the petitioner was removed from the service. The petitioner then challenged the said order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1229/94 in the Patna High Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 25.4.1995 by a Bench of the Patna High Court holding that the petitioner was not appointed ...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Miraj Alias Boswa Mian and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2949
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th Sept. 2003 passed by Shri Manoranjan Kavi, 6th Additional Sessions Judge. Giridih in Sessions Trial No 238 of 2000/44 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he acquitted both the respondents, namely Miraj Mian alias Boswa Mian and Masraf Mian.2. The five convicts have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 1545 of 2003 against that order of conviction and sentence passed in S.T. No. 328 of 2000/44 of 2003.3. Learned A.P.P. for the State-appellant has submitted that the learned Court below, while acquitting both the respondents, has not discussed the evidence properly resulting their acquittal. He referred to evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 (the I.O.).4. On perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it is very clear that respondent No. 1 Miraj alias Boswa Mian gave stone blow on the chest of the deceased, while respondent No. 2 Masrat Mian climbed on the roof of Qayum Mian and opened fire, although none sustained firearm injury. In pa...
Royal Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhupendra Engineering and Construction ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR548(Jhr)]
ORDER1. L.P.A. No. 41/2004 is filed by respondent No. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 3405/03, L.P.A. No. 129/2004 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in that writ petition, the State and its officials. Both these appeals challenge the decision of the learned single Judge quashing the award of a contract to respondent No. 6 based on a Notice Inviting Tender, N.I.T. No. 1/2003-04. We are concerned with Package 3 of the said tender. There were four bidders for Package 3 out of whom two were the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2004 and respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. On 31.5.2003, the technical bids were opened and all the four tenderers were found eligible. Thereafter, on 18.6.2003, the Engineer-in-Chief took a decision to open the financial bids, the next day. He thereupon allegedly informed the four bidders over the telephone after 3 p.m. on 18.6.2003 about the proposal to open the financial bids, the next day. It is stated that pursuant -to that telephonic call, the representatives of respondent N...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »