Jharkhand Court May 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.
Shyam Sunder Barnwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR371(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Deoghar vide Memo No. 10, dated 14.1.2004 whereby he has imposed a mandatory condition of production verification report of the Circle Officer in a prescribed format before the Registrar for registration of deeds in the district of Deoghar.2. Petitioner's case is that suddenly he needed money for medical treatment and for other exigencies and having no other source for getting money, offered to sell one katha of land of Jamabandi No. 50/60 out of plot Nos. 635 and 636 of P.S. Jasidish, district, Deoghar or his own relative, Smt. Mamta Devi for a consideration of Rs. 66,000/-. Accordingly a sale deed was drafted and presented after affixing proper stamps before the District Sub-Registrar, Jasidih for registration the District Sub-Registrar asked the petitioner to bring the inquiry report of the Circle Officer and present it along with the sale deed as directed by the Deputy...
Sardar Veer Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4712; [2004(3)JCR464(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the licensing authority as also the Commissioner, being the appellate authority, whereby the arms licence, granted to the petitioner, has been cancelled.2. It appears that in 1992, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and his two sons wherein charge-sheet was submitted. In 1998, the licence of the petitioner was suspended and he was directed to show cause as why the licence be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his show cause and, thereafter, by order dated 18.11.2000 respondent No. 2, licensing authority, cancelled the arms licence. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazribagh, which was dismissed.3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no valid reasons have been assigned by the respondents, while cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted ...
Kuldip Chouhan Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR586(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner was transferred to Sijua Area by order dated 23/24.2.2001 (Annexure-2). Upon perusal of the order of transfer it is evident that the petitioner was functioning as a Clerk Special Grade on 8.3.2001, the petitioner was released from the South Balihari Colliery so as to enable him to join at his transferred place. This fact is evident from the office order dated 5/6.3.2001 as contained in Annexure-3 and here also the petitioner is described as Clerk Special Grade. On the same day i.e. on 8.3.2001, the petitioner gave his joining before the General Manager of Sijua Area vide Annexure-4. It is evident that on 1.6.2001 by Annexure-5, the petitioner was then directed by the Deputy General Personnel Manager, Sijua Area to go and give his joining before the Project Officer of Nichitpur Collier. It is just after that on 4/6.6.2001 by Annexure-7, the Project Officer of Nichitpur Colliery informed the Deputy General Personnel Manager, appare...
Saroj Devi and ors. Vs. Manik Chand Sarawgi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR368(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Defendant No. 2 and the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 24 of 1996 on the file of the Munsifs Court at Ranchi are the appellants in this second appeal. The contesting respondents, the plaintiffs, had filed a caveat and have appeared through counsel in the second appeal. Therefore, when the second appeal came up for admission under Order XLI. Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the second appeal itself was finally heard and it is being disposed of by this judgment. Counsel appearing in the case had authenticated and undisputed copies of the pleadings and the relevant documents and the said documents were referred to during the course of hearing.2. Though Various grounds are taken in the memorandum of second appeal, at the hearing. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. N.N. Tiwary raised only one substantial question of law before me. That question was 'whether the suit for eviction by the plaintiffs aga...
Junior Doctor Association Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR507(Jhr)]
ORDER1. As we are satisfied that Public Interest is involved, this case is entertained and heard, keeping aside the objection about the locus standi of the petitioner.Stand of the petitioner2. The grievance is that the decision to recruit and the process adopted to select the doctors on contractual basis is wrong and against public interest. As no appointments were made since 1990, the Government should have taken steps for regular appointments as has been done for appointing about ten thousand teachers through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, after creation of this new State. There is no justification for such hurry in making such ad hoc appointments in the field of public health. The cadre bifurcation pursuant to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 of the Medical Officers has almost been finalized and the tentative list has been published. The State cadre posts are sought to be filled up by District Level Selection Committees. Fixing upper age limit as 60 years is also contrar...
Puneshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4493
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner Puneshwar Prasad Singh has filed this Criminal Writ Petition with a prayer to direct the respondents not to harass him in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 232 of 1998 (G.R. No. 1794 of 1998), registered against his son and others for the offences under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to do with his son, who is out of his control. He has also sworn an affidavit prior to institution of this case against his son that this petitioner has left his son and has no connection whatsoever with his son. It is further submitted that as Ranjit Singh alias Ranjit Choudhary, son of this petitioner, is absconding in the said case, processes etc. under Sections 82, 83, Cr.P.C. have been proclaimed and the properties of this petitioner have already been attached. 4. Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned J. C. to G.P.I, submi...
Manfred Knoll and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR570(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 3.12.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 670/2002, T.R No. 821/2003, whereby cognizance for an offence under Sections 27A read with Section 17A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been taken against the petitioners.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that opposite party No. 2-Gopal Krishna Kedia (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), filed a complaint case against the petitioners being Complaint Case No. 670/2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 821/2003 stating therein that he purchased two ampules of injection syntocinon Batch No. 07025-G from the Rahul Medical, Giridih and handed over it to the nurse of the Nursing Home. The nurse, while administering the injection upon the patient namely, Smt. Chanchal Agarwal, found some foreign element in the ampule and informed about the same to the complainant. The nurse handed over the...
Ahmad HussaIn Alias Md. Ahmad Mian Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR572(Jhr)]
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 of Jharia P.S. Case No. 331 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 2775 of 2000 including the order taking cognizance dated 2.4.2002.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that O.P. No. 2 of this application lodged an FIR with Jharia P.S. to the effect that her son Md. Islam Mian is working in Lodna Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited as Wagon leader and he was allotted a quarter bearing No. NHS-9 in Coal Board Colony, Baniahir and on 13.9.2000 he shifted in the said quarter. In the meantime, one Ahmad Hussain alias Md. Ahmad Mian came and entered into the quarter with family and asked her son Islam to vacate the quarter and assaulted him and threatened him with dire consequence. From that day, Md. Islam is traceless. On the basis of this statement, Jharia P.S. Case No. 331 of 2000 was registered under S...
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2989; II(2004)DMC847; [2006(1)JCR183(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 1-2-2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 1451/2001 (T.R. No 1018/ 2002) under Sections 498A/323/379 and 494, IPC.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the application are that the opposite party No. 2 Devanti Devi filed a Complaint Case No. 1451/2001 stating therein that she was married with the petitioner in the year 1977 and she lived in her sasural peacefully for two years and thereafter she lived with her husband-petitioner for three years at different places on his posting and out of his wedlock, three daughters and one son were born and the petitioner left opposite party No. 2 at his paternal house at Birni with her daughters. One of the daughters has been married. It is further alleged that petitioner got married with one Purnima Devi in the year 1985 in connivance with the other accused persons. Father-in-law and brother-...
Akileshwar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1204]; [2004(3)JCR351(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ1087Jhar
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel on all sides.2. W.P.(C) No. 2976 of 2004 filed by the General Secretary, Mosabani Mines Labour Union, challenges a notice, Annexure 11 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, calling upon the Union concerned to hold a fresh election on the basis of complaints that the election held on 21.2.2001 was not properly conducted. In the writ petition, it is contended that the Registrar of Trade Unions had no power to annul an election, already held, though he may have a power to ensure that the provisions of the Trade Unions Act are complied with. The further ground is that by the time he issued Annexure 11 notice, a suit had already been filed on 11.5.2001 as Title Suit No. 12 of 2001, seeking a declaration that the election held on 21.2.2001 was valid and the office bearers elected therein, were validly elected. While admitting the writ petition, this Court also stayed the proceedings pursuant to that notice.3. W.P.(C) No. 2248 of 2004 is file...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »