Jharkhand Court July 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 Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This revision application under Sections 397/40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 18-2-2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. JV/JV/Jha335/2004/RUG-MPP/CSL/30414/2004 No. 320/99 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of Cr. P. C.2. It appears that the case was instituted against 26 accused persons and cognizance was taken by the C.J.M., Dhanbad under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B. I.P.C.3. The prosecution story in brief is that all the accused persons dragged the husband of the informant from his house and killed him with deadly weapons. Before the framing of charge the petitioners who are amongst the accused persons filed an application for their discharge on the ground that no independent witnesses have sup- ported the case and after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against 11 accused p...
State Through the Superintendent of Police, Cbi Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Si ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR1677
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by Special Judge Central Bureau of Investigation cum-4th Additional District Judge Dhanbad in R.C. No. 1(A)/89(D) whereby he has closed prosecution evidence and the case was fixed for examining the accused and for recording his statement under Section 313, Cr PC.2. It appears that a criminal case was instituted against the opposite party on the allegation inter alia that he has acquired huge assets both movable and immovable while working at different capacity in BCCL and he could not satisfactorily account for his illegal source of income. On the basis of FIR a case was registered under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that some of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and some more witnesses have to be examined but the Court below closed the evidence in t...
Jai Prakash Mahto Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR321(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Munshi and to pay the difference in wages since 2.1.1995.2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as piece rated loader in the respondent's company on 13.2.1988 and subsequently by office order dated 23.8.1996 the petitioner was authorized to work as a Munshi, according to him, which he has already been doing with effect from 2.1.1995 as per the direction of the Project Officer. The further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duty of a Munshi, although he was given payment to the post of category 1 Mazdoor w.e.f. 20.10.1997. The further case of the petitioner is that all along the respondents addressed the petitioner as Munshi and in fact he has been discharging the duties of Munshi for which he is entitled to get higher pay scale of a Munshi. According to the petitioner, he possess...
Dasho Oraon Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR327(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Munshi and to pay the difference in wages since 25.4.1997.2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category No. 1 in the respondent's company on 12.8.1989. Subsequently by office order dated 25.4.1997 the petitioner was authorized to work as a Munshi with immediate effect (Annexure-2), The further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duty of a Munshi. but he is being given payment admissible to the post of category No. 1 Mazdoor. In all the correspondences he is being addressed as Munshi and in fact he has been discharging the duties of Munshi and as such he is entitled to get higher pay scale of a Munshi. According to the petitioner, he possesses all the requisite qualifications which are required for the said post. The petitioner also claims that he has been disc...
Laldeo Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR466(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of tlie cider dated 21.6.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-10 whereby the petitioner lias been awarded punishment of dismissal in a departmental proceeding and for quashing of the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the D.I.G.. South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-12 and also the order dated 17.6.2003 passed in revision application being No. J.S.R.D.O. No. 1328/ 2003 passed by the Director General of Poliee-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in An-nexure-14 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected.2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was a Hawaldar in Jharkhand Police and since the month of December 2001 he was posted as incharge of Court Hazat, Jamshedpur in East Singhbhum District. The petitioner's case is tha...
R.B. Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR436(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner, R.B. Singh against the order of posting of respondent No. 5, Parmanand Paswan in R.E.O. Work Subdivision, Nimdih. Saraikella.2. The main plea as was taken by the petitioner is that the posting order of Par-manand Paswan in R.E.O., Work Subdivision. Nimdih was cancelled by the Government vide Memo Nos. 1101 and 1102 both dated 21st February, 2004 and thereby he should go back and report to Panchaiyati Raj and N.R.E.P. (Special Division) Department.3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, this Court vide order dated 21st May, 2004 directed the State not to relieve the petitioner from the post of R.E.O., Work Sub- division, Nimdih, if he has not yet been relieved. Notice was also issued to respondent No. 5, Parmanand Paswan. who has appeared.4. From the connected writ petition W.P. (S) No. 2433 of 2004, it appears that Parmanand Paswan was transferred and posted in R.E.O., Work Sub-division, Nimdih vid...
Ramashis Deo Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR584b(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Munshi and to pay the difference in wages since 25.2.1992.2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Mazdoor, Cat. I in the respondent's company on 21.12.1991 and subsequently by office order dated 21.7.1993 the petitioner was advised, to work as a Munshi, and to arrange proper loading of tubs. In another office order dated 20.1.1994 his shift as Munshi was rearranged by the Project Officer, Kedla under ground project. Letters dated 5.9.1994 and 11.5,1994 were issued by Dy. Personal Manager, Kedla under ground project for holding meeting regarding hisregularization on the post of Munshi along with others. The petitioner is thus discharging duty of a Munshi, but he is being given payment of the post of categoiy No. 1 Mazdoor. The further case of the petitioner is that all along the respondents...
Abhay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4533
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel of both the parties.2. In this Writ Application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire Criminal Prosecution in Sarwan P. S. Case No. 81 of 2000 corresponding to T. R. No. 1038 of 2004 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar and also for a direction of release of the petitioner forthwith from the Jail custody on the ground that the petitioner is a juvenile and he is in custody since 6-11-2000 along with other criminals and the total period of detention i.e. 30 days in remand home including three years eight months which is still continuing, is three years nine months.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of direction of this Court (Annexure 4) up till now the petitioner has been detained in custody under the Juvenile Justice Act. The enquiry also could not be concluded but the substance of accusation has been explained on 16-9-2003.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very ...
Pramod Behl Vs. Shova Maya Ghosh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR489(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendant-appellant stands directed against the impugned order dated 25.9.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 2001 by Shri R.K. Gupta, Sub-Judge III, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petition under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant for grant of temporary injunction was rejected.2. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) had filed Title Suit No. 116 of 2001 against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant) for a declaration that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.2.1999 and thereupon for a further declaration that the cancellation/termination/discharge of the said agreement by the plaintiffs for breach of terms and conditions thereof on the part of the defendant was proper, legal and valid and binding upon the parties. A further declaration has been sought that consequent...
Tula Mahto and ors. Vs. Chaman Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR482(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree of reversal dated 23.12.1989 and 6.1.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 117 of 1988 by Shri Manohar Lal Visa, 2nd Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 38 of 1985 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.2. The plaintiff-appellant have filed the said title suit for a declaration that the suit and detailed in the Schedule of the plaint is their raiyati land in which they have their right, title and interest and for recovery of possession evicting the defendants-respondent therefrom. The suit land is 4.06 acres consisting of several plots appertaining to Khata No. 1 Village-Kharna, Police Station-Gomia, District-Giridih.3. The case of the plaintiffs-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), in brief, is that the suit land was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »