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.
Parmeshwar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Director General of Po ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR70(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the district order No. 561/ 2003 dated 28.5.2003 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from the service and also the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the appellate authority, DIG (CID), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed by a laconic order. The said order was passed in a departmental proceeding, initiated on the basis of the charge sheet served on the petitioner containing three articles of charges, which has been annexed as Annexure-2. The petitioner was imputed with the charges, that on 26.7.2001 he was deputed as a driver of a Gypsy with CID Special Team but when the team was about to move he was not found on duty and the team had to travel to Khunti by bus; that on 27.7.2001 the petitioner was found in the drunken condition and that on 19.9.2001 medical check up was conducted and the petitioner was found under influence of intoxica...
Saratul Fatima and ors. Vs. Khodaiya Bibi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR521(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the principal defendant-appellant Md. Sharif Mian has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmation dated 5.5.1990 and 21.5.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 47 of 1984 by Shri Stayendra Singh, 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 1983 by 4th Sub Judge. Palamau were affirmed.2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed the said title suit for a declaration that they are the owners as of their own right of the suit land measuring 2-1/4 decimals of plot No. 688 appertaining to Khata No. 252 situate in village Hariharganj @ Satgawan, P.S. Hariharganj District Palamau shown in red and blue colour in the sketch map annexed with the plaint and more fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint and for confirmation of possession over 1- 1/2 decimals out of the suit land shown in red colour in th...
Patras Baa (Kharia) Vs. Marianus Bilung and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR103(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 10.1.2003 and decree dated 18.1.2003 of the affirmance passed by the District Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2002 upholding the judgment and decree, dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Munsif, Simdega in Title Suit No. 5 of 1999.2. The plaintiff is the appellant-appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit lands.3. The plaintiffs' case was that the suit lands appertaining to Khata No. 163 of village Nanesera P.S. Simdega were recorded in the name of Lohra Kharia son of Mangra Kharia in the last Revisional Survey record of right, which were the subject matter of the suit. It was stated that the said Mangra Kharia was also known as Basrai Kharai Mangra Kharia and Basrai Kharia are the names of one and the same person. The plaintiffs are the descendants of the recorded tenant Lohra Kharia. It was stated that the plaintiff No. 1 was in servic...
Narendra Kumar Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4494; [2004(3)JCR421(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the criminal revision applications were heard on the same date and there being common question of law involved, are disposed of by this common judgment.Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2003The petitioner, Narendra Kumar has challenged the judgment dated 3rd May, 2003 passed by Sri V.N. Sahu, learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 432 of 19.94, whereby and whereunder the Court below acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 302/34 and 201/34, IPC.2. The case of prosecution, as per informant, Narendra Kumar (PW 4) was that on 21st October, 1993 at 8 p.m., the accused (O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 herein) came to his place and asked his brother, Rajesh Mahto @ Roshan Mahto (deceased) to accompany them to Dharana Sthal. His brother went with them but did not return till next date morning (22nd October, 1993). The informant went to the house of the accused persons and enquired about his brother but they replied that his brother has not accompani...
Shyamdeo Mahara Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR419(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This criminal revision application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 12th January, 2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 1997, whereby and where under the petition filed by petitioner under Section 391, Cr PC for taking additional evidence has been rejected on the ground that there are sufficient materials and exhibits on record to decide the appeal on merit.2. The petitioner is the informant at whose instance FIR was lodged on 3rd November, 1991 and a case under Sections 144 and 379, IPC was registered against the accused-O.P. Nos. 2 to 16, Sartha P.S. Case No. 169 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1501 of 1991/T.R. Case No. 531 of 1997 was instituted. In course of trial, prosecution examined altogether 8 prosecution witnesses. After hearing, learned trial Court by its judgment dated 14th August, 1997 having found all the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 144 and 379, IPC c...
Dr. Shyam Nandan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4394; [2004(3)JCR417(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the cases, as similar prayer has been made and common question of law involved, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2003 has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Chatra in G.R No. 495 of 1994/ T.R No. 579 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, he acquitted the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 for the charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.3. The case of the prosecution as per informant is that his wife namely Manju Singh entered into a written agreement dated 6th October, 1991 with the accused persons for purchase of two Kathas of land situated in the district of Chatra for valauble consideration of Rs. 42,000/-. An agreement was duly signed by the parties in presence of witnesses and Rs. 10,000/-was paid towards advance money to the accused persons on 6th October, 1991, as mentioned in the agreement. F...
Rishi Cement Company Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1690; [2004(4)JCR64(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The order dated 28.1.1997 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has been challenged in the present writ application, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has cancelled the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner-Company with respect to Khata No. 241, Plot No. 202, Areas-7 acres and Plot No. 302, Area-3 acres, total Area-10 acres situated at Village-Bangabar, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh and directing the Circle Officer, Mandu to initiate a proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act against the petitioner-Company.2. The facts in short giving rise to this application which are not in dispute are that the Plot No. 202, Area-45 acres and Plot No. 302, Area-16 acres was acquired by Hart Das Karmali from the ex-landlord by a Hukumnama, In the old Register II, the name of Hari Das Karmali was entered. The Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 who were the legal heirs of late Hari Das Karmali, after taking pe...
Akil Ahmad Vs. Md. Zakir and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR587(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmation passed by the Additional District. Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Title Appeal- No. 38 of 1988. The defendant is the appellant appellant. The plaintiffs had filed-Title Suit No. 94 of. 1970 in the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad praying relief for declaration of title and delivery of possession over the suit land described in Schedule 'C' to the plaint measuring an area 9 Chhataks being portion of plot No. 2109 appertaning to Khata No. 100 of Mouza Parurpala P.S. Chouki, District Dhanbad.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land at one point of time belonged to one Abdul Rauf and Moinuddin which was purchased from one Mahoshwari Devi, who had acquired the same from the Railways. Abdul Rauf and Moinuddin sold the said land measuring one Katha and nine Chattak as described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, to the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed dated 1.7.1965. The plaintiffs constructed a com...
Sukro OraIn Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR424(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The respondent No. 5 Singha Oraon, filed an application for restoration of Plot No. 1061 under khata No. 177 of Village Karkarra under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act alleging therein that the transfer of the land was made in contravention of the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The respondent No. 4, Special Regulation Officer, vide order as contained in Annexure-5, passed an order for restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 5. Against the said order passed by respondent No. 4 the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioner-preferred revision under Section 217 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which was also dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure 7. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid three orders passed by the Special Regulatio...
MoIn Khan and ors. Vs. AmIn Zema Khan and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR72(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmation. The defendants are the appellants-appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their 1/4th share in Schedule-B property mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land which is described in Schedule-B was recorded in the names of Md. Zama Khan, Md. Ali Zama Khan, Md. Rasul Zama Khan and Sowan Bibi in the cadastral survey records of right each having equal share. There was no partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs purchased 1/4th undivided share of Sowan Bibi by virtue of registered sale deed dated 6.8.1963 and claimed their continuous joint possession. It was stated that in due course it became difficult for the plaintiffs to enjoy joint possession and as such they requested for partition of their share and on refusal by the defendants, partition suit was filed in the trial Court in which they claimed partition of their 1/4th share.2. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »