Jharkhand Court April 2004 Judgments
Yadu Sao Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd., a Subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR129(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-4, dated 12.3.2002/15.3.2002, whereby, he was informed that his application for employment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the same was filed after a lapse of more than one year and, therefore, his case has not been considered for employment.3. The petitioner moved this Court earlier in WP (S) No. 1183 of 2002, wherein he made a prayer for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground and to pay the retiral dues payable to his deceased father who died-in-harness on 25.2.1999. It was contended in the said writ application that the respondents are not passing any order in that regard. This Court by order dated 14.2.2002, disposed of the said writ application with a direction to the respondents CCL that in such cases, such application for appointment on compassionate ground is pending before them, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a peri...
Tag this Judgment!Bistu Mahato Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3287; [2006(1)JCR148(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27-8-2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Rev. No. 94 of 2003, affirming the order dated 19-7-2003, passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in T.R. No. 89 of 2003. Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application dated 24-1-2000 for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. Against that petitioner filed the said revision, which was also rejected.2. Admittedly petitioner filed protest petition on 24-6-1999 when charge-sheet was submitted under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. Then cognizance was taken under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code on 3-7-1999. Petitioner took part in the trial. He never challenged the said order taking cognizance and continuance of trial. The trial has considerably advanced. The petitioner filed the said petition on 24-1-2004, contending that Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR181(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents.2. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in WP (S) No. 2813 of 2001 for payment of retrial benefits, pension, gratuity etc. on the basis of last pay drawn by him and also for quashing of Annexure-8 which is the order dated 24.2.2004, whereby the second time bound promotion given to the petitioner was withdrawn. The writ application was disposed of on 20.12.2001 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, it was observed in the said order that with regard to the recovery of the amount which was paid in excess to the petitioner pursuant to the second time bound promotion, the authority concerned will determine as to whether the second time bound promotion was granted to the petitioner on his misrepresentation or not? Against the said order of Single Judge the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 60 of 2002, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 14.7.2002 affi...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kujur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR226(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to add the Commandant, 106 Bn. Border Security Force, Barrelly, Uttar Pradesh as party respondent No. 4 to this writ application.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the' respondents.3. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents to grant and pay the lump sum compensation along with the interest and ex gratia amount to the petitioner in view of disability up to 65% caused to the petitioner due to Improvised Explosive Device Blast which took place on 8.8.1996 at Akhara Building, near Lal Chowk, Shrinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, where the petitioner was posted and was performing his duty.4. In may view, the matter has to be enquired into and the claim of the petitioner is to be determined firstly by the competent authority. Accordingly, this application is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed repre...
Tag this Judgment!Chaman Munda Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR212(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. It appears that Election Suit No. 1 of 2004 was initiated on the basis of a complaint petition, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hazaribagh.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.3.2004, as contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh, whereby the Election Suit No. 1/2004 has been disposed of on the ground that the applicant, Chaman Munda (petitioner herein) has settled the dispute with the Opposite Parties and also on the ground that in the enquiry which was made on 25.2.2004, the petitioner could not establish the charges against the Opposite Parties.4. No doubt the petitioner had filed an application earlier to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the Opposite Parties but as it appears from Annexure-7 that on 12.3.2004, he also filed an application that he does not want to compromise the matter and, therefore, the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC389; [2004(3)JCR186(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 8.4.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2000 whereby and where under the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh set aside the order 1.12.1999 passed in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 1991 by SDJM. Koderma.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this instant application are that Champa Devi who is petitioner of this case, had filed a Maintenance Case. No. 33 of 1991 stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of O.P. No. 2 and marriage was solemnized in the year 1969 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs and ten months after solemnisation of marriage, Rokhsaddi was done and after Rokhsaddi this petitioner went with her husband to her sasural and living with O.P. No. 2 as husband and wife. After marriage O.P. No. 2 maintains her properly for some years, but thereafter he made a demand of Rs. 5,000/- as dowry which father of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Binda Devi Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR182(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondent's to make payment of the amount of leave encashment and gratuity, to be calculated on the basis of revised pay scale, which came into effect from 1.1.1996. Further prayer is for a direction to pay and also to fix the family pension on the revised scale of pay.3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several representations have been filed by the petitioner to make payment of arrears but no, payment has been made till date.4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner may be paid family pension in revised scale of pay but so far the arrears are concerned the Board is not in a position to pay the said amount at present because of non-division of the assets of the two Boards, i.e., JSEB and BSEB.5. In the view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass an approp...
Tag this Judgment!Hamidan Khatoon and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3626; I(2005)DMC449
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 2875 of 2002.2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution case are that Zohra Khatoon, informant-O.P. No. 2 filed a written complaint before officer-in-charge, Jagarnathpur P.S. stating therein that she was married with Jamil Akhtar according to Mohammedan Law on 7-5-1992 and at that time, Mehar amount of Rs. 5,101 /- besides maintenance was fixed and at the time of her departure to her sasural, her father had given articles worth rupees one lakh including jewellery, furniture and utensils etc. Soon after marriage she was being pressurized and tortured for illegal demand. She has further stated that out of wedlock two children were born, namely, Khalid Akhtar aged eight years and Mujahid Akhtar aged four years respectively. Her father had given rupees fif...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Ram and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3436
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25-7-2000 and order of sentence dated 27-7-2000 passed in S.T. No. 510 of 1998 whereby and where under the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellants of both the appeals guilty under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for ten years each.2. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant as well as the victim girl Sunila Kachhap, who is daughter of Madho Kachhap, had gone to attend marriage ceremony on the invitation of Manjula Lakra, daughter of Sadhu Lakra on 10-3-1998. On this occasion, village girls, namely, Munni Kumari, Hira Kachhap, Langri Mundain, Kokali Mundain and others were enjoying dance and singing. At about 11.30 pm she went to make water and she came out of the house for going make water in sahan where appellants and one more accused person were there who were concealing themselves and...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR376(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. The petitioner has moved this Court earlier by filing WP (S) No. 4681/2003 which was disposed of on 17.9.2003 against which the petitioner filed LPA No. 639/2003. The order passed by the Division Bench in LPA on 25.2.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. On perusal of the said order it appears that the Division Bench has set aside the Notification No. 3787 dated 12.9.2003. Notification No. 3797 dated 12.9.2003 and also Notification Nos. 3787 dated 12.9.2003, 3797 dated 12.9.2003 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the matter was remanded back to the authority concerned to consider the matter strictly in accordance with law.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above facts, the respondents are not issuing formal consequential orders, causing hardship to the petitioner in discharging his official duties.4. Other grievance of the petitioner is that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »