Jharkhand Court August 2004 Judgments
Meena Devi and anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar Verma
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR174(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1993 and 26.4.1993 respectively passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 20/89, whereby and whereunder the learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi decreed the title (matrimonial) suit and passed a decree of divorce.2. Case of the plaintiff-respondent in brief is that plaintiff- respondent is the husband of appellant No. 1 Meena Devi and marriage between both of them was solemnised on 17.6.1981 at Church Road, Gudri, Ranchi according to Hindu rites and after solemnization of marriage appellant No. 1 was brought to her sosural by plaintiff-respondent and on the very day of suhagrat plaintiff-respondent came to know that his wife appellant No. 1 is behaving like a child, although she was aged about 20 years on the date of suhagrat and was a mentally retarded lady. When this fact was brought to the parents of the appellant No. 1 then respondent was ass...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Dubey Vs. Smt. Sushma Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC92; [2004(4)JCR197(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2000 passed in Matrimonial (Title) Suit No. 57/92, whereby and where-under the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissed the suit.2. The complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') brought a suit for annulment of marriage vide Matrimonial Title Suit No. 57/92 under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that at the time of the marriage the respondent-wife pregnant by some person other than the appellant but thereafter the appellant amended the suit and added additional grounds for annulment of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the prayer was allowed. The appellant thereafter added another ground of divorce as cruelty being meted out with the appellant by his respondent-wife. On the other hand, the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the marriage between him and th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramavtar Mochi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Through I.G. of Pris ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR187(Jhr)]
ORDER1. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge refused to decide the issue with regard to the correction of date of birth. The actual issue was, when and how the age of the petitioner recorded in the service book as thirty years was managed to be interpolated and recorded as twenty years. The learned Single Judge has held that this is a matter to be adjudicated by the civil Court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also definitely of the view that such disputed question with regard to the date of birth of an employee cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant put reliance on the judgment of a Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Baidyanath Singh v. BCCL and Ors., reported in ILR 2000 (2) Pat 30. In that case, the fact was that the date of birth of the petitioner was originally recorded in the service book as 3.1.1946 which was subsequently struck-off and in that place, thirty five...
Tag this Judgment!Seshnath Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR655(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The petitioners are undisputedly daily wage. workers engaged during the period 1976 to 1979. Earlier they had come to this Court for the same and similar relief, besides the additional plea that equal pay for equal work be given to them as is being given to the regular employees for the similar work. By Annexure-1, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the respondent No. 2 therein shall consider the matter and pass appropriate order in this regard upon verification as to whether the petitioners are performing the same and similar nature of work, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is pertinent to say here that before making this order, the learned Division Bench had also relied on the several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the persons who are discharging the similar functions are entitled to be paid same salary in terms of Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution....
Tag this Judgment!Bidesh Singh Vs. Madhu Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR173(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This election petition has been filed by the above named petitioner who was one of the contesting candidates of 318 Panki Assembly constituency of Bihar Legislative Assembly held in the year 2000, to set aside the election of the Returned Candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 and further for his dec-laration as elected from the said constituency in place of respondent No. 1 after inspection and scrutiny of 258 illegally rejected ballot papers of booth No. 35 bearing vote in his favour.2. The Election Commission of India issued Notification No. 464, dated 17.1.2000 for the election of 318 Panki Assembly constituency. The election programme of the Assembly election for 318 Panki Assembly constituency was as follows :(i) Last date of filing of nomination -24.1.2000(ii) Date of scrutiny of nomination paper - 25.1.2000(iii) Last date of withdrawal of candidature -27.1.2000(iv) Date of polling - 12.2.2000(v) Date of Repolling - 24.2.2000(vi) Date of counting - 25.2.2000 and...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jhark ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR53(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.1999 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1998 convicting the appellant No. 1, Manoj Singh alias Manoj Kumar Singh and finding him guilty under Section 392 read with Sections 297 and 411. IPC and appellant No. 2, Prahlad Singh under Sections 392 and 411, IPC and sentenced them to under go RI for seven years and three years respectively. Appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307, IPC.2. A sanha was lodged when the police got information that Harladih Police Camp personnel and the villagers have caught two criminals who were running away after committing robbery at Harladih Rural Bank, on the point of arms. The FIR was recorded on the fardbeyan of the Manager of the Bank (PW 2). The prosecution case in brief is that on 1.7.1997 at about 1.40 p.m. the accused persons entered into th...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR658(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to pay salary for the period from 5th October, 1993 to. October, 1999 during which period he has worked as Junior Engineer as also the salary for the period from 1st January, 2000 up till date, the period during which he has worked as Assistant Engineer.2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mines Board, Hazaribagh submitted that the petitioner was regularized against the post of Junior Engineer thereby, he cannot claim for salary of the post of Assistant Engineer.3. Having heard,, counsel for the petitioner, as this Court finds that this matter should be determined by the respondents at first instance, this case is remitted to the Secretary, Mines Board, Hazaribagh to determine as to how the period from 5th October, 1993 to October 1999 and 1st January, 2000 to till date would be counted and what salary the petitioner would be entitled under the law. The respondents wil...
Tag this Judgment!Braj Kishore Mahatha Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR658b(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. According to petitioner, he is in the services of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in its Western Jharia Area, Moonidih, District-Dhanbad. fie was taken in judicial custody and later on came out from custody in the year 1980 and went to join his service but, he was not allowed to work. The respondents then informed him that he has been dismissed from service but, no such order of dismissal has been communicated to him.2. The petitioner explained the ground of delay to move this Court after 24 years. According to him, earlier he was told that action can be taken for reinstatement if he is acquitted in the criminal proceedings. Now he has been acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 23rd October. 2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in ST No. 386/1986 and, therefore, intends to give his joining.3. In the present case, it is to be determined whether the petitioner is in the services of the res...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Coal India Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR747(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.2003 passed in WPS No. 4138/2003, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no illegality in the memorandum dated 17th July, 2003 issued by the respondents, which was sought to be quashed in the writ petition.3. The petitioner-appellant was departmentally proceeded and after serving charge-sheet the enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that some of the charges were partly established and some charge was fully established. On the basis of said report the respondents issued a memorandum calling-upon the appellant to file show cause why a penalty of reduction in scale of pay be not imposed on him.4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned memorandum mainly on the ground that in the second show cause notice the respondent authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Krishna Dan @ Hare Kisto Dan Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1791; I(2005)DMC121
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.1999, passed by Shri S. Narayan, Sessions Judge, Chaibasa Camp at Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 440 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. No Counsel appeared for the appellant on repeated calls. Mr. Faizal Rahman assisted as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant. He pointed out various contradictions and submitted that only on the basis of evidence of the victim lady, the appellant has been convicted.3. The prosecution case in short is that Rabindra Nath Dey, father of victim Sulekha lodged written report on 13.8.1995 (Ext. 1) to the effect that Sulekha was married with Jagarnath Dan, son of the appellant on 7.12.1994. The appellant demanded heavy dowry which was paid. On 2.8.1995 the informant received information...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »