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.
Shyamapado GoraIn Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR256(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.2.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, whereby the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction allowed the revision application filed by Jagarnath Gorain and set aside the order passed by the appellate Court.2. The petitioner by filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act before the LRDC, Dhanbad claiming pre-emption, on the ground of being adjoining Raiyat of the Plot No. 1225 of Khata No. 10 situated in Mauza Deoli, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad which was purchased by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from the respondent No. 7 by registered deed dated 19.2.1992 of which registration was completed on 28.7.1993. The claim of the petitioner was that the said land was agricultural land as the petitioner is an adjoining Raiyat of the land in question and, therefore, he has a claim of pre-emption over the same.3. Whereas the case of the oppos...
The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant (Sail) Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR304(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The award of the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City dated 23.09.1999 in Reference Case No. 52 of 1992 is under challenge in this writ application by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.2. The following, dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court:--'Whether to retire Shri Sagar Mahto, Khalasi, Staff No. 386286. Town Administration Deptt. (Electricity) by treating his age as 12 years, by the management of Bokaro Steel Limited is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?'3. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the workman Sagar Mahato was appointed as Khalasi/Mazdoor and he joined the said post on 23.12.1977. On joining, he submitted and filled up Personal Data Form and declared his age to be 42 years. Considering the date of superannuation to be 58 years as per the Standing Order of the Company, the Notice dated 25.08.1993 was served on the workman communicating that he would superannuate from the servic...
Kusum Ranjani Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR303(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner who is a practicing lawyer at Chaibasa has prayed that she should be appointed as Notary as per Gazette Notification dated 28.12.2001 as contained In Annexure 7. Contesting the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, the respondents filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 7 it was stated that several objections had been received against the petitioner and the same had been sent to the District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa as also to be Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa for verification. It was on the basis of the aforementioned statements that on 19.03.2004, this Court granted time to the State to file an affidavit regarding the reports of the District Judge and the Deputy Commissioner. Today, when the case was called out, a Supplementary Counter Affidavit was placed on record and it has been filed by the Additional Legal Rememberancer, Law (Judicial), Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The reports of the De...
Hilip Kumar GoraIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3216
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Petitioner by filing this criminal writ petition has prayed to take action against Respondent No.2 - Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka Division, Dumka who has not released the truck of the petitioner bearing No. WGD-1442, although the sureties have earlier duly been furnished by the petitioner before the authorities who had ordered for release of the truck without any delay. By I. A. No. 235 of 2003, an application for amendment in paragraph-1 was filed in which it was prayed for quashing the order dated 3-8-2001 passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Ministry of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, who is Respondent No.3, and has stayed order dated 16-4-2001 passed by the Deputy Collector-cum-Confiscating Officer. By filing another I. A. No. 1052 of 2003, the petitioner has further prayed by amending paragraph-1 of the writ application praying therein for quashing the order dated 2-7-2003 / 3-7-2003 passed by Respondent No.4 - Deputy Commi...
Nasim Parvez and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1303; 2004CriLJ3433; II(2005)DMC428; [2005(2)JCR535(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners in connection with T.R. Case No. 2184 of 20902, Giridih P.S. Case No. 128 of 1985.2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order of cognizance mainly on the ground that as per the Bihar Amendment in Section 4 of the said Act no prosecution can be launched without the sanction of the competent authority notified by the Government. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Rajesh Kumar Kejriwal and others' (1997) 10 SCC 524. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:'Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or othe...
Om Prakash Agarwala Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR648(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Petitioner Om Prakash Agarwala prayed to quash order dated 23.9.2003 passed by Shri Abdul Samad, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 198 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the criminal revision application filed against the order dated 19.6.2003 passed by Shri V. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Baliapur PS Case No. 8 of 2003 (G.R. No. 357 of 2003) in which the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized machineries, crusher machine and other instruments along with stone chips, etc has been rejected.2. Petitioner was granted mining lease for mineral stones on 26.4.1990 for ten years at Mouza Paharpur over Plot No. 2598 part measuring an area of 5.74 acres within Baliapur PS of Dhanbad district. He started carrying on business of mining operation. The mining lease expired in the month of April, 2000. He filed renewal application before the respondents on 15.12.1999. When in time no mining lease was renewed, then ...
Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR206(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 22.11.2003 issued under the signature of Registrar (Vigilance), Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi whereby petitioner was directed to show cause as to why recommendation should not be made for removing him from the post of Public Prosecutor.2. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been served with an order as contained in letter dated 9th February, 2004 issued by the Secrctary-cum-Law Advisor to the Government of Jharkhand whereby his appointment as Public Prosecutor, Chatra has been cancelled. The said order has also been challenged by filing amendment petition.3. Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Public Prosecutor in the District of Chatra by the Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 28th September, 2002 and since then he was discharging his duties as Public Prosecutor. It is stated by the petitioner that he was shocked and surprised to receive a sh...
Kitun Bibi and ors. Vs. Bibi Rojni and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR457b(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendants appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.02.1988 and 29.2.1988, respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 53 of 1985 by Shri Baleshwar Prasad Singh, 1st Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 18 of 1982/2 of 1985 by Shri Ranjit Prasad Singh, 3rd Additional sub-Judge, Giridih were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs respondent was decreed and title of the plaintiffs respondent and proforma defendant Nos. 15 to 21 was declared and their possession over the same was confirmed.2. The plaintiffs respondent have filed the said suit for declaration of their title along with proforma defendant Nos. 15 to 21 and confirmation of their possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of the suit plot Nos. 33, 35, 36, 38 and 39 appertaining to dar-raiyat khata No....
Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board Through Chairma ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR267(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:--'(I) For quashing the orders issued vide Bihar State Electricity Board's letter No. 2051, dated 31.7.1999 (Annexure 5) communicating the Board's resolution No. 2050, dated 30.7.1999 wherein one increment of the petitioner was stopped with non-cumulative effect and censured with entry in his ACR for the year 1991-91 in view of the Audit report for the year 1991-92 which was communicated to the petitioner vide Board's letter No. 1314, dated 17.6.1995 asking for an explanation which was also submitted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 5.7.1995 but the aforesaid Board's resolution was taken and communicated to the petitioner without any further departmental proceeding and, opportunity of hearing just before two months of his date of retirement which was to commence with effect from 30.9.1999 in view of the repeated observations/dtrections by this Hon'ble Court.(II) To quash the l...
Sita Ram Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR166(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.I.A. No. 111 of 2004 :1. Heard the parties on the I.A. No. 111 of 2004.2. The application for amendment is allowed. Let the amendment application be treated as part of the main writ application. The prayer of the respondents to award costs for allowing the amendment, is refused.W.P. (S) No. 821 of 2002 :3. Heard.4. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally and by order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 2.9.2000 contained in Memo. No. 840, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh being the disciplinary authority, imposed punishment, by which the petitioner was reverted to the original post and scale. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh who vide his order dated 9.10.2001 contained in Annexure-9, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.5. The main ground for challenge of the order as contained in Annexures 7 and 9 are that the disciplinary authority neither issued any notice to show cause to the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »