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.
Prabhat Kr. Hazam and ors. Vs. Rajeshwar Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR310(Jhr)]
ORDERNakendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 11 Additional District Judge. Dumka in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1996 passed by the Sub-Judge II Dumka in Title Suit No. 32 of 1985.2. The defendants were the appellants-appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of their right and title over the suit land. described in Schedule-1 of the plaint.3. The plaintiffs' case was that Shiv Jogi Hazam being the sole owner of the land and house described in Schedule 1 was in possession and occupation of the said house. He with his wife and children used to live in the ground floor of the said pucca building and the first floor of the said building was let out to Narayan Singh on monthly rental basis and rent was being paid to Shiv Jogi Hazam and after his death to his widow Bimla Devi and his other heirs. According to the plaintiffs. Shiv Jogi Hazam died in the year 1970 leaving behind...
Sk. Nayeem @ Md. NayeemuddIn and ors. Vs. Sk. Abdul Hamid and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR304(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendants-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.1.2003 and 31.3.2000/22.4.2000 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2000/9 of 2002 by N. Mishra, 1st Additional District Judge. Godda whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the tried Court passed in Title Partition Suit, No. 13 of 1999 were set aside and the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the trial Court under Order XLI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for the re-trial of the whole suit by setting fresh issues on giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.2. The plaintiffs-respondent had filed the said suit for partition of the suit property detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint claiming 10 annas share; therein by carving out their separate takhata through the process of the Court and delivery of possession in respect thereof.3. The case of the plaintiffs-respondent, in brief, is that ...
Shyam Sundar Bhagat Vs. Binod Kubhakar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR74(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his title and for restoration of khas possession. The plaintiff's case was that the suit property described in Schedule-A was originally recorded in the name of Chaitan Kumar in the last cadastral survey. From the first wife, Chaitan Kumar had eight sons and from the second wife Chaitan Kumar had two sons-Doman and Ganesh. It was stated that Schedule-A property was in exclusive possession of Doman Kumar which was also mentioned in remarks column of the Survey record, Doman Kumar died leaving behind his only son Manager Kumar, Manager Kumar was in exclusive possession of the suit property which was later on transferred to Thulai Kumar by virtue of registered sale-deed in the year 1959. Since after the said transfer Thulai Kumar was coming in possession and after his death the same was inherited by his two sons namely Khonku and Sukhdeo. Sukhdeo t...
Binod Kumar Rai Vs. Vinoba Bhave University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR63(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner had come before this Court earlier vide W.P. (S) No. 5618 of 2002 making a grievance that the ad hoc committee of the college had taken a resolution on 2.9.2002 vide agenda No. 8 to remove the petitioner from the post of Professor In-charge (Principle In-charge) of the college and to handover charge of his post to Shri Arjun Rai a lecturer in the Department of Mathematics.3. On of us, by order dated 22.11.2002 took note of the fact that Shri Arjun Rai had not been impleaded as a party although a statement/allegation was made by the petitioner to the effect that Shri Arjun Rai was junior to the petitioner. In that context the matter was remanded to the Vice Chancellor with a direction that he will determine the question as to who amongst them was the senior most teacher of the college and who should be Professor In-charge of the college and communicate the decision within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the representatio...
Anugrah Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary De ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC293; [2004(4)JCR66(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. K.N. Prasad Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Allam and S.K. Verma, S.C. (Mines) on behalf of the respondent State.2. Both the connected cases were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order.3. In W.P. (C) No. 3192 of 2004, petitioner has challenged the award dated 30.11.2000. passed in Award Case No. 74 of 98 (Annexure-17), the appellate order dated 14.2.2001 (Annexure-18) and the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 8 of 2000-01 filed on the basis of the said award.4. It appears that in Award Case No.74/98, petitioner appeared but inspite of reminders did not file any show cause. Ultimately, a decree was passed against the petitioner ex parte and Bank was given the liberty to realize the dues by filing certificate Case.5. Petitioner filed an appeal, being Award Appeal No. 2 of 2001, which was also dismissed on 14.2.2001. Thereafter a certificate case being Certificate Case No. 8 of 2001 was filed, in which, petitione...
Anjalus Uraon and anr. Vs. Kamil Uraon
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR513(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree of affirmation dated 5.12.1987 and 21.12.1987 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1985 by Shri Yugal Kishore Prasad, 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1985 and 10.4.1985 passed in Title Suit No. 74 of 1983 by the trial Court were affirmed and the appeal aforesaid was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs-appellant had filed Title Suit No. 74 of 1983 for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land detailed in the Schedule at the foot of the plaint and in the alternative for recovery of possession. The suit land is of plot Nos. 89, 144, 86 and 154 having an area of 7.18 acres appertaining to Khata No. 21 of village Kitta P.S. Mahuadarn District Palamau.3. The case of the plaintiffs-appellant in brief, is that Khata No. 21 having an a...
Mohan Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1545; [2004(3)JCR413(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The sole appellant Mohan Manjhi has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16th December, 1998, passed by Sri Krishna Murari, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 447 of 1994/42 of 1998, whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The accused-appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his two daughters and one son. His wife Smt. Kalomi Manjhi (PW 1) lodged a fardbeyan (Ext. 3) against the appellant (husband of the informant), who later on was declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned Court below convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence of single eye-witness, namely, Rohara Murmu (PW 3), as corroborated by some other witnesses, namely, Ratan Murmu (PW 4), Dhansi Murmu (PW 5), Lambodar Murmu (PW 6) and Sugda Murmu @ Sukhdeo Mur...
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Under Sec ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR76(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure 8). By this the Central Government has refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that the claim of appointment of the dependent of the deceased has been raised after nine years of the death of the employee.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no delay. The concerned employee died on 4.7.1993. The dependent Dhaneshwar Beldar claimed employment, vide letter dated 8.9.1993, which was rejected on 21.9.1993, on the ground that he was minor. After attaining majority, Dhaneshwar Beldar again made an application on 17.5.2000 for his employment, which was again rejected on 26.3.2001. The dispute was raised on 27.11.2002. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no delay. The judgment dated 16.11.1995 rendered in CWJC No. 1960 of 1995(R) is relied on.4. It appears, from the said judgment that the learned Judge has f...
Anand Sao Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ452
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Sole appellant Anand Sao has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 13-12-1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1988 (G. R. No. 179 of 1988) by Shri L. A. K. Sinha, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby & where-under this appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Informant Nandwa Sao (PW. 10). brother of this appellant and son of deceased Puran Sao, has alleged in the FIR that on 7-4-1988 at 15 hours at village Bharda, District Gumla, his brother Anand Sao (appellant) was going to irrigate his garden having spade in his hand. Their father Puran Sao (deceased) demanded his share of one ox to cultivate his share of land. At this moment, Anand Sao gave a spade blow on the forehead of his father Puran Sao. Puran Sao on being injured fell down and died instantaneously. Informant's mother Devni Sahuain (PW. 1), his wife Parvati Devi (PW. 11) and Radha Devi (PW.6) hav...
Karpuri Devi and anr. Vs. Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR579(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. Since, the other respondents are only co-defendants with the petitioners, I do not think it necessary to issue notices to them in this writ petition. I am, therefore, disposing of this matter finally after hearing counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondents 1 and 2.2. In a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, the petitioners, entered appearance on 31.7.2003. They did not file a written statement within thirty days thereof and not even within the ninety days fixed. Therefore, by the order dated 19.11.2003 the Court debarred them from filing a written statement and decided to proceed with the suit. Thereafter, on 15.12.2003 the defendants purported to file a written statement along with a petition for accepting the same. But it is seen ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »