Jharkhand Court August 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.
Purna Chandra Gaur Vs. Luthi Gaur
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar107; [2004(4)JCR405(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent against the judgment and decree dated 24th February, 1990 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 24/5 of 1985-88.2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 9.2.1993 formulating two substantial questions.(i) Whether the judgment of the learned Courts below is vitiated due to total non-consideration of the oral evidence laid by the parties?(ii) Whether the learned Court below has committed an error of law in holding that the judgment of Title Suit No. 1592 of 1967 to which the appellant was not a party is binding upon him ?3. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 393/8 of 1974-85 praying relief for declaration that C.S. plot No. 45 forming R.S. plot Nos. 5822 and 5823 and portions of 5821 and 5824 in mouza Mango measuring an area of 1-01 acres belonged to the plaintiff Purna Chandra Gour and for confirmation of his possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession, if th...
Mukul Kumar Sinha Vs. Kashi Nath Keshri
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1753; [2004(4)JCR793(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This is revision filed by the defendant Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure though in the memorandum of revision, Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been invoked, but Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that it is a mistake and the Revision will be Under Section 115(1) of the'Code of Civil Procedure, Ii may also be noted that if the landlord had withdrawn his claim Under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, on the ground of default in payment of rent, the order of eviction can be one Under Section 14 of the Act. In any event, what this Court has to consider is whether the Court below was justified in ordering eviction Under Section 11 (l)(e) of the Act, based on the pleadings in the case.2. The revision was taken-up with consent of counsel for final disposal even on the delay being condoned. Both sides were heard in deta...
Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, State Electricity Board ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR685b(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. The respondents have filed a supplementary show cause. annexing Annexure-B whereby a notification has been issued by the Office Order No. 681 dated 31.07.2004 whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken for paying the arrears in revised scale to the employees of the Board in four installments in every alternate months and the first installment will be given from September, 2004. The respondents, therefore, have said that in view of this decision the contempt should be dropped.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is insisting that since in some cases particularly in W.P.(S) No. 5480 of 2002, on the basis of which this case was Tiled, the payment has been made and in some other cases in which order was passed by different Benches of this Court payment has been made, so this case should be (realed at par with W.R(S) No. 5480 of 2002 and direction be given to make the payment. The learned counsel for the respondents has been ...
Bijay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR687(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard. Petitioner's contention is that Bihar State Electricity Board is entitled to realize/receive the certificate amount and not the Jharkhand Stale Electricity Board.2. It appears that 'petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3565 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of on 29.5.2001. with an undertaking by the petitioner that he will appear before the Certificate Officer within two weeks and the Certificate Officer was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objection Under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But petitioner did not appear upto 11.7.2001. The Certificate case had to be decided expaste.3. Final order was passed in the said Certificate Proceeding No. 5 of 1995-96 as far back as on 9.8.2001. Petitioner did not. file any appeal against the said order. The said order has become final. Proceedings for attachment was started. Petitioner claims to have failed an application before the Certif...
Harendra Prasad Gond Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR689(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 519 of 2004. The petitioner-appellant applied for a dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The dealership was reserved for a person, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The appellant alongwith his application for dealership, enclosed a caste, certificate, showing that he was a Gond. It is seen that the certificate issued to him in that behalf was cancelled by the Commissioner. The appellant challenged that before this Court. . This Court quashed the order of Commissioner on the ground that principle of natural justice was violated and directed the Commissioner to take a fresh decision on the question of the status of the appellant. This Court directed the Commissioner to decide whether the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe or not. Pursuant to that direction, the Commissioner considered the question. He ultimately ended-up, by passing an order to the effect, that since the appellant belongs to Si...
Ram Chandra Das and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC598
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This criminal revision application was preferred by petitioners against the Order dated 14th May, 2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 490 of 1999 arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No. 148 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 343 of 1999, registered under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C., whereby and whereunder learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma has refused the prayer made on behalf of petitioners under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine P. W. Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 already examined.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and, accordingly, a compromise petition has been filed. The defence intended to recall and re-examine P.W. Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 but it has been illegally rejected. To secure the ends of justice, the Trial Court should have recalled all the material witnesses Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 for their further cro...
Kiti Rana and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4782; [2004(4)JCR43(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.4.1990 passed by Shri P.N. Yadav, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T.No. 368/1988 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.1. for life. The appellants have been further found guilty under Section 364, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.1. for 10 years. The sentences are to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as made out in the FIR, Ext. 3 recorded on the statement of the informant Draupadi Devi is that deceased Parmeshwar Mahto was a labourer. He along with others were engaged on hire for cutting earth in village Haramwar. On 15.4.1988 as usual he had gone on work in the early morning but did not return home. One Raj Kumar, son of Arjun Mahto PW 6, informed the informant that Parmeshwar had to attend a feast and would return by 2 o'clock. Further that on 14.4.1988 at about 4-5 ...
Arun Devi and anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC227; 2006ACJ497; [2004(4)JCR90(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal and Vishnudeo, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.2. The Tribunal by the impugned order and award dated 27th September, 2003 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- only. The deceased Manoj Singh aged about 24 years was working as driver of truck bearing registration No. WB 37-2244. The truck met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to injuries. The claimant's case was that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month from the owner of the truck. The owner of the truck also appeared before the Court as PW 4 and he deposed that the deceased was getting only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident took place in 1999 and taking his daily earning at Rs. 80/- per day for 26 days in a month the monthly income comes to Rs. 2,100/-. Taking this amount the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 2,85,6000/-.3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the finding of the Tribunal by sub...
Ram Nath Munda and anr. Vs. Khaintu Munda and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR561(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal preferred by defendant-appellant- appellants is :--Whether in view of the fact that the deed of adoption was executed in the year 1950, a suit filed in the year 1981 was barred under the law of limitation. No liberty had been granted to raise another substantial questions of law but it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the questions to be answered are whether Section 2 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act bars adoption by Schedule Tribes and whether the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to the plaintiff who is a Munda (a schedule tribe)?2. The question aforesaid arose out of the following short facts:--The plaintiff Paku Mundan (who was subsequently substituted by Khaintu Munda) was the daughter of Ghuran Munda. The pleading is that the plaintiff as also her ancestors were sufficiently Hinduised and they were governed by Hindu Mitkashara Law in ...
Usman Mian and ors. Vs. Hamidan Bibi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR669(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The substantial question to be answered in this appeal is 'Whether the learned Court of appeal below erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that the learned trial Court held on the basis of evidence of the witnesses that Rajia daughter of Mehru had no share (presumably on the basis of the statement of PW 4 and PW 6 that at the time of Mehru's death he had left behind his three sons)'.2. The aforesaid question arose out of the fact that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for partition of the Scheduled B land given in the plaint. Plaintiffs' Genealogy is as follows :-- PLAINTIFFS GENOLOGY MEHRU (DIED IN 1925) ______________________________|______________________________ | | | Baksu Ludu Kalu(died) (died after the death of Mehru) (died in 1952) _______________________|________________ | | | | | | Benga @ Yasin Ferunia (daughter) | __________________________________...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »