Jharkhand Court May 2004 Judgments
Miss Achala Kundu (Miss) Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR547(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner who claims to be a health worker under the Health Department of State of Jharkhand, has prayed for following relief :(i) to quash the order of punishment contained in letter dated 8th July, 2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment has been inflicted.(ii) to direct the respondents to pay her the subsistence allowance for the period from 8th November, 2001 to 7th July, 2002.(iii) to direct the respondents to pay her the salary for the months of February, 2000; October, 2000; January, 2001; February, 2001; February, 2003 and from November, 2003 to February, 2004, and(iv) to direct the respondents to pay her the amounts towards earned leave from 27th July, 2001 till 10th August, 2001 and from 21st March, 2003 to 1st May, 2003.2. So far the first i.e. the prayer against the order of punishment dated 8th July, 2002 is concerned, there being a forum of appea...
Tag this Judgment!Bipta Devi and ors. Vs. Chander @ Kangress Maraiya and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR468(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.3.1987 and 10.4.1987 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 92 of 1997 by Shri Raja Ram Singh, 1st Additional District Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1997 passed in Title Suit No. 11 of 1975/35 of 1977 have been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.2. Original plaintiff Sakali Maraiyian had died during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court below and her heirs and legal representatives have been substituted.3. Original plaintiff Sakali Maraiyian has filed the said title suit on 18.1.1975 for a declaration that the registered deed of adoption dated 24.12.1974 (Ext D) alleged to have been executed by her is void, illegal, inoperative and tainted with fraud and is the result of fraud committed on her by defendant-respondent Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR354(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The writ petitioner claims to be a social worker working for the benefit of the labourers in Sikni Colliery Area within the State of Jharkhand. The Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation was a Corporation controlled by the State of Bihar. On the reorganisation of the State under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the JSMDC) was formed and according to it, it is playing the role of a successor to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, in so far as it relates to the State of Jharkhand. On 8.8.2002, the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, issued a Global Notice inviting Expression of interest in mineral exploration, mineral development, mining and mineral based industries in the State of Jharkhand. The invitation for Expression of interest was in order to develop the mineral resources of Jharkhand on sustalnable basis. The minerals/ores for wh...
Tag this Judgment!Parwati Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3619
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 12-1-1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 627/98, whereby and whereunder cognizance under Sections 406/420 IPC has been taken against the petitioners.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has filed a complaint case before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 24-11-1998 stating therein that accused No. 1, M/s. Durga Finance Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and accused No. 2 Smt. Parwati Agarwal and accused No. 3 Mangi Lal Agarwal are its directors. One M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. is also a company limited by shares duly incorporated under the Companies Act. M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. issued equity shares @ Rs. 10/-. The accused No. 1 had purchased some shares of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. on or about 22-5-1995 a...
Tag this Judgment!Lalan Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1556; 2004CriLJ3622
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 28.3.2003 passed by SDJM, Koderma in complaint case No. 60 of 2003.2. Facts giving rise to filing of this application are that OP No. 2-complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma alleging inter alia therein that her husband late Jagdish Lal Chhabra and petitioner Lalan Prasad were running a company under the name and style of M/s. Super. Steel Casting Ltd, as Directors of the company along with other directors. But due to some mala fide intention, accused-petitioner became hostile to the interest of the company and it appeared to her husband that accused was committing a lot of financial irregularities including defalcation in running of the business and its assets and its income. Her husband approached the petitioner many times and put pressure on him for accounting of the business ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Chandak Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1546
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This criminal revision was not in the list on 5.3.2004. It had already been directed to be posted before me in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge before whom it was listed in the normal course, directed it to be listed before the Chief Justice to assign it to another appropriate bench and had also suggested that if possible it may be listed on 5.3.2004, It was directed to be listed next week. But on the request of senior counsel from Delhi that the matter be heard, especially since I was sitting single that day and he had come all the way from Delhi to argue it, the matter was called up for hearing since the prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation also submitted that he was ready to get on with the case. It was thus that the case was called up and taken up and both sides were heard.2. The accused is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order passed by the Special Judge-ll, CBI (AHD), Ranchi. On 20.1.2004 in RC 54/[A]/9...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Kumar Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR508(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in Chhotanagpur Law College as he possesses all the required degree and qualifications and that he also qualified in the entrance examination for admission in the said Law College.2. The petitioner States that he has completed three years course of Sahitya Alankar+Setu from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, which is equivalent to B.A. Hon's Degree in Hindi. After obtaining the degree of Sahitya Alankar, he applied for admission in Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi, in LL.B. Part-I in May 2001 under Scheduled Caste category. He appeared in the entrance examination. When he did not find his name in the list of successful candidates in the merit list published by the Ranchi University, he made enquiry from Law College and then came to know that though he secured requisite qualifying marks for admission in the Law College but his admission was b...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Pollution Control Board and ors. Vs. Md. Afaid Khan and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1473; [2004(3)JCR498(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This civil review has been filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and others for reviewing the order dated 1.5.2003 passed in CWJC No. 4094 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder this Court, on consideration of the materials on the records, directed the followings :'In that view of the matter, it is directed that the respondent shall complete the selection process of appointment of Field Assistant-cum-Technicians within a period of two months hereinafter and if the petitioner, who has served in the department for last 13 years and is in the panel the respondents will consider his case for his appointment on regular basis and if the respondent pass any adverse order they will give reason for that with a copy of that order to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty, if aggrieved by that reason to come to this Court.'It also appears that as there was a panel prepared in pursuance of some advertisement taking place in the year 1990, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashraf Ali Ansari Vs. Ram Lochan Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1488; [2004(3)JCR611(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. In this second appeal, at the stage of admission, it was seen that the respondent had filed a Caveat. Hence even at this stage, the second appeal was finally heard.2. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of the suit building on 15.12.1987. As an assignee landlord, he issued a notice to the defendant on 22.1.1988 which was received by the defendant on 27.1.1988., Thereafter, it is seen that the defendant was paying rent to the plaintiff and his case was that receipt were being given, not regularly but once in 3 or 4 months. The plaintiff approached the Court with the suit on 30.9.1999 on a plea that the defendant had defaulted in paying rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the month of August, 1997 and has hence become a defaulter within the meaning of Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. The plaintiff, t...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar Through the Commissioner North ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR652(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioners in the instant case pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.8.1992 (Annexure 5) of the respondent No. 3 which was passed on remand as per order dated 11.3.1992. By reason of the order dated 7.8.1992, the LRDC, Hazaribagh held that the lands in dispute were recorded in the names of the ancestors of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Consequently he passed an order directing the Circle Officer to ensure restoration of land in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. The petitioners further pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure 7) passed in Land Reference Case No. 16/92 by which respondent No. 3 ordered the restoration of lands belonging to the petitioners in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners also make a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.8.1995 (Annexure 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 in RAN Case No. 5/95 rejec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »