Jharkhand Court July 2004 Judgments
Rohan Mahto and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR499(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 2 to 5. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their right, title and interest over the plaint A Schedule property; for a declaration of the right of easement of the plaintiffs for their exit to the Hirak Road land in the western boundary of the plaint A Schedule; for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 2 to 5 to demolish the construction allegedly illegally put up by them over Hirak Road land, blocking the passage of the plaintiffs from their house and for consequential reliefs.2. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of plaint A Schedule on the basis of a purchase from defendant No. 1. Puran Mahto. Their case is that they constructed a residential building in that plot of land, facing west and they had an exit from their house to the Hirak Road lying west to the Schedule A property. Defendants 2 to 5 put up some construction on the western side of plaint A Schedule property at a dis...
Tag this Judgment!Devnand Parmar @ Devnand Jayantilal Parmar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC480
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Complaint Petition No. 669 of 2002 filed on 20th May, 2002 pending in the Court of Sri Nasiruddin, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 498A, IPC.2. According to petitioner, his, marriage was solemnized on 12th December, 1996 with O.P. No. 2, Smt Rajeshree Parmar without any dowry. For the reasons best known to O.P. No. 2, she left she petitioner's house with her father on 1st October, 2002. The petitioner had to file a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 24 of 2002 for decree of divorce against the O.P. No. 2 in the Court of Family Court, Ranchi in which notices were sent, Subsequently, the O.P. No, 2 filed Complaint Petition No. 669 of 2002 against the petitioner only with intention to harass the petitioner for filing divorce petition against her. In para 19 of the complaint petition, she disclosed that it was not a case of demand of dowry but was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Jema OraIn Vs. Mansai Kujur @ Marsel Oraon and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR195(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 30.8.2002 passed in Title Appeal No. 53/95 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gumla upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1995 passed in Title Suit No. 25/93 by the Munsif Gumla. The plaintiff-respondents filed the said suit praying relief, inter alia,, for declaration that the order passed by the ASO, Ranchi Camp, Gumla passed in Revision Case No. 11/91 dated 8.4.1993 is illegal and infructuous and for declaration of his right and title over the suit land and also for possession and alternatively for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land of Khata No. 129 of village Kating, P.S. Chainpur, District Gumla was recorded in the name of late Futkal Sakra Oraon in re visional survey records. The said receded tenant had no male issue. He died leaving behind five daughters namely, Martha, Soloney, Megledlina, Marg...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Valley Corporation and ors. Vs. Bhairav Mandal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR566(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The 1st respondent, Bhairav Mandal (writ petitioner) whose services were terminated on 1st July, 1996, filed the writ petition CWJC No. 680 of 2000 (R) before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction on the appellants (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition) to provide him with employment and thereby to reinstate him in the services of the appellants. It was allowed by the learned single Judge by impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2002 in CWJC No. 680 of 2000 (R). The appellants (respondents) were directed to grant a job to the 1st respondent under the Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation).According to the appellants, the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) had no right for appointment under the Corporation. Further, the scheme/project having already come to an end, the 1st respondent cannot be appointed.2. The brief fact of the case is that the lands of 214 villagers we...
Tag this Judgment!Federal Security Through Its Proprietor and Managing Director, Lt. Col ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR89(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Inspite of notice by registered cover with acknowledgment due as per the order dated 4.9.2003, respondent No. 9 has not appeared. With the consent of the parties, this case is being disposed off at this stage.2. Petitioner's case is that Hindustan Copper Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) has discriminated the petitioner in awarding the work. Further, the company itself should have taken a decision, but it has acted on the advice/sponsorship of the Directorate General, Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi (respondent Nos. 1 to 4-DGR for short).3. Learned counsel appearing for the company submitted that in view of the circulars issued from time to time by the Ministry of Heavy Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, the company is required to engage security personnel through the Directorate General of Resettlement/State Ex-Servicemen Security Corporations...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tulsi Devi and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1943; [2004(3)JCR572(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants is whether the learned Courts below erred in construing the instrument dated 30.12.1968 as a mortgage as a conditional sale. Thus, Ext. B, which is the deed and has been construed by the two Courts below as a deed of mortgage with conditional sale required to be reconstrued. It is the settled principle of law that the interpretation of the document is always a substantial question of law and on this point, both the parties in this appeal have no dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants, in this connection, referred to AIR 2000 SC 3009.2. The question aforesaid arose out of the facts that the plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. The deed Ext. B was admittedly executed by the defendant No. 3, Jwala Prasad Sah, (who did not counter the suit, nor deposed in the case) on 30.12.1968 and a registered in favour of defendant No. 1 for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sales Corporation Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)41; 2004CriLJ4569
1. This is the complainant's appeal on special leave granted by this Court under the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below in C/1 Case No. 705/98 (T.R. 751/A/03). 2. The case of the complainant appellant was that it is partnership firm dealing in business of sale of building materials, namely cement, iron rods etc. having its place of business at Cinema Road, Parsudih, Jamshedpur and the accused is a supplier, of such building materials. According to the complainant the respondent, opposite party No. 2 used to purchase the building materials regularly from the complainant. The price, on purchases, were sometime paid in cash and sometime purchases used to be on credit. In course of time sum of Rs. 2,36,522.68 had become due against the accused respondent No. 2 towards prices of the building materials supplied on credit by the appellant. The said outstanding dues was duly acknowledged by the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Nath Roy Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Cha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR316(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner prays for payment of balance amount gratuity amounting to Rs. 3050/- and to commute 40% of his pension.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after order was passed on 26.2.2004 in W.P. (S) No. 1111 of 2004 he made representation on 30.4.2004 to the Electricity Executive Engineer the Secretary and the Chairman but he has not received any reply to the same, though the said representation was to be disposed of as per the order dated 26.2.2004 within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was verbally told by the Electrical Executive Engineer that he is not the competent authority and, therefore, the matter has been referred to the competent authority. Thereafter petitioner sent copies of the representation to the Secretary and Chairman also.4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the General Manager, Dumka is competent to look...
Tag this Judgment!Poolice Hembram and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4408; [2004(4)JCR80(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellants is directed against the impugned Judgment and order dated 17.2.1999 and 19.2.1999 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1997/137 of 1998 by Shri Mungeshwar Sahoo, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo RI for five years for the offence under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were released on due admonition. However, no separate sentence was awarded to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Co-accused Dukhan Ansari was not found guilty of the charges aforesaid and he was acquitted.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 1) of PW 6 Karmi Hembram, the informant, lodged before Pathargama PS on 29.3.1997 at 16.30 hours...
Tag this Judgment!Bokaro Steel City Central Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. Through It ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR501]; [2004(4)JCR698(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.8.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City-Cum Authority under Shops and Establishment Act, condoning the delay in exercise of his power lander Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, hereinafter . to be referred to as the said Act, and also for quashing the order dated 24.5.1996 whereby the said Presiding Officer-respondent No. 1 has passed an order directing reinstatement for the respondent No. 2 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits. According to ' the petitioner, the said orders passed by the respondent No. 1 are wholly illegal, unjust and not sustainable, The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a sales man on 4.9.1962 and from the very beginning he was in the habit of ignoring his duty. In the month of July/August, 1974 it was detected that the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »