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.
State of Jharkhand and Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR589b(Jhr)]
1. We heard these cases on 12th and 13th August, 2004 and then resumed hearing on 19.8.2004 and contitiued the hearing on 20th August, 2004 and 23rd August, 2004. This morning, when the arguments were to be resumed, in the contingency of one of us, the Chief Justice, retiring in the evening of 27.8.2004, we asked counsel for respondent No. 7 in the first writ petition, who was on his legs, whether he will to finish his argument by Lunch today. He submitted that he requires the 'whole of the day and tomorrow also. On behalf of the State of Bihar, it was submitted by counsel that Senior counsel for the State of Bihar will take two days time thereafter. It would mean that the respondents alone would be completing their arguments by the evening of 27.8.2004. Thereafter, some time for the reply on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. S.S. Ray and Dr. Debi Pal will be required. We have, in the circumstances, no adequate time to render the judgment.2. To sum-up, we had spent considerable time in t...
Deodhari Mahto and ors. Vs. Sitaram Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR746(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel -for the appellants.2. This appeal at the instance of the appellants stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.2003 and 24.5.2003 respectively passed by Shri Anil Kumar, Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Court No. VII, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1988 and Title Appeal No. 11 (A) of 1988 whereby both the appeals were dismissed.3. The appellants had filed Partition Suit No. 104 of 1979 for declaration that the sale deed dated 8.10.1978 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 16 and 17 in respect of the land of Schedule 'G' of the plaint is not binding on them and they have further sought a relief for partition of Schedule 'B' to Schedule 'F' land of the plaint in which they claimed l/6th share.4. The plaintiffs had made out a case in para 15 of the plaint that the sale deed: dated 8.10.1978 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 16 and 17 regarding the some land...
State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Jagat Lal Vishwakar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR94(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellants (State of Jharkhand and others) have challenged the order dated 10th December, 2002, passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3354 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge while set aside the order, contained in letter No. 14967, dated 1lth November, 1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to the extent the date of time bound promotion of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) is concerned, the appellants have been directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of Annexures-10 and 11 of the writ petition. whereby two juniors to the writ petition have been given promotion with effect from the year, 1987 with a further direction to provide the writ petitioner all the consequential benefits of such promotion.2. From the facts, as admitted by the parties, it appears that the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) was initially appointed on 9.5.1957. Subsequently his services were terminated on 1st September, 1968. Thereafter, he...
Bijoy Prasad Roy and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR43(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. By the Court.-Heard Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Bharti Kumari, JC to GP-IV for the respondent Nos. I to 6.Respondent No. 7 (State of Bihar) has stated in its Counter Affidavit that it has no relationship with this case or with the case of the petitioners. They have also stated that the Health Guides were engaged on a token amount of Rs. 50/- per month under the Schemes of the Central Government and that the Government of India has decided to discontinue its participation in the said Scheme from April, 2002. It has also been stated that pursuant to the aforementioned decision (Annexure- A appended to the Counter Affidavit of the State of Bihar), the State Government of Bihar has decided to close the scheme with effect from 1.4.2002. However, the State of Bihar has made statements in paragraph - 8 to the effect that in a similar matter WP No. 5682 of 2000 (R), disposed off on 12.3.2002, this Court has held that the petitioner therein c...
Sardar Gurucharan Singh and anr. Vs. Priya Ranjan Bhagat
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR110(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This Second Appeal is by the defendants in a suit for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff, the landlord, claimed eviction on the ground of sub-letting under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, and on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent under Section 11 (1)(a) of the Act. The tenant, the first defendant resisted the suit by denying both the claims. The trial Court overruled the contentions of the defendants and decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. This Second Appeal challenges the concurrent decrees for eviction passed by the Courts below.2. Though various questions of law are indicted as substantial questions of law arising for decision in the memorandum of Second Appeal on hearing the parties, I find that the following two substantial questions of law arise for decision. I ma...
Mayarani Kundu and ors. Vs. Purushottam Das Jhunjhunwala and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR144(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This second appeal by the defendants in a suit for eviction under Section 11(1)(c) and Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was, admitted on the following substantial questions of law :--'(i) Whether merely for non-production of postal receipts, when rent was tendered by way of money order and the same was refused by the landlord, it could be held that a default in payment of rent has been proved within the meaning of Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act?(ii) Whether on the pleadings and the evidence in the case, the Courts below were right in law in ordering, eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act?2. After taking notice of the second appeal, the plaintiff- respondents have filed a memorandum of cross-objections challenging the refusal of the decree by the lower appellate Court under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. Though the scope of the right of appeal has to be determine...
Udayanchal Seva Santhan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR107(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This appeal by the petitioner in WP (G) No. 3076 of 2004 challenges the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge mainly on the basis that the dispute arose out of a contract and the dispute cannot be settled satisfactorily in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The petitioner in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 13.1.1988, the Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality issued a letter to the appellant informing it that six Sulabh Sauchalayas were being handed over to the appellant for its control and management and that a rent of Rs. 25,000/- had been fixed annually and on terms and conditions set out. Pursuant to that letter, the appellant was carrying on the maintenance of the Sulabh Sauchalayas. This arrangement was being continued by letters issued annually to the appellant. The appellant took charge of the maintenance ...
Pitamber Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR114(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This public interest litigation has been preferred by petitioner against Notification No.-19/Uo (Budget)-58/2001-Part 1-229/Ranchi, dated 8th February, 2003 issued by Under Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, 4th respondent, Surendra Singh, a retired Superintending Engineer of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as JSEB) has been appointed as 'Nodal Officer', Hydro Electric Projects under the Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as JREDA). Alternative prayer has been made for issuance of an appropriate writ of quo warranto upon the 4th respondent, he having been appointed as Nodal Officer, Hydro Electric Projects under JREDA.2. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer of Bachelor of Engineering degree from Sidda Ganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Visveswariah Technology, Belgaum and a permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand. According to petitio...
Pabitra Kumar Dutta Vs. Kumardhubi Metal Casting Engineering Works Ltd ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar51; [2005(1)JCR104(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal is as follows :-Whether the Court of appeal erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had not made out the case of title by adverse possession in the plaint and as such was not entitled to any relief in that case.'2. The aforesaid question arose out of the facts that the plaintiff-respondent-appellant had filed a Title Suit No. 16 of 1975 for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over 14 decimals of land out of 53,60 Acres of land within portion of Plot No. 4, Khata No. 3 of Mouza Kumardhubi, Pergana Pandara, police station Chirkunda, in the district of Dhanbad, bounded in North Portion of Plot No. 4, South Village road and thereafter houses east Durga Mandir and local club and West portion of Plot No. 4 on the basis of settlement made in his favour by M/s. Burrakar Coal Co. Limited in the year 1952 at a rental (annual) of Rs. 1/besides cess; Thereafter, the plaintiff paid ...
Dhuchu Munda @ Sardar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR49(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC arid has been sentence to undergo RI for life by the Additional judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 423 of 1994.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.1993 at about noon, the informant's younger brother's wife Binjo Mundain along with her 10 years daughter Jouney and three months aged son had gone to Perto Tanr land to collect fire wood. His younger brother had gone to Jaltanda bazar. At about 4.00 p.m., her niece Jouney (PW 3) informed the informant at his residence that accused Dhuchu Munda @ Sardar Munda assaulted her mother with a Tangi (axe) causing her severe injuries. On getting the information, the informant along with other villagers went to Perto Tanr and found Binjo Mundain lying dead. On her face, there were several injuries caused by Tangi. Her three months aged child was screaming nearby. According to the prosecution, at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, Karra police ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »