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.
Karan Murmu Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1673; [2004(4)JCR140(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of Annexure-1 by which appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner and also for quashing of Annexure-2 by which the Settlement Officer set aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer.2. The short questions to be answered in this writ petition are, (1) whether sister's son can inherit a joint landed property of maternal uncle. (2) whether a widow Santhal lady can create gharjamai even without the consent of the next heir of her deceased husband, (3) whether a daughter can succeed the property under the Santhal custom, (4) whether the story of gharjamai can be accepted even without any valid and legal document and (5) whether decision under Section 145, Cr PC with regard to the possession is binding on civil Court in determining the question of title?3. The case briefly stated is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Title Suit No. 26 of 1969 before the Subordinate Judge, Sahibganj for a decl...
Sukhlal Deogam @ Lal Singh Deogam and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1730; [2004(4)JCR59(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The appellants were convicted by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Cahibasa in ST No. 262/1987 under Section 302/34, IPC for the murder of Borta Deogam and were sentenced to undergo RI for life. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The incidence said to have occurred in the day time on 17.11.1986. According to the prosecution case, the said Borta Deogam (father of the informant) along with his elder sister-in- law (Bhabhi) Bamela, nephew and other family members had gone to Khalihan. At about 3 p.m., Borta complained uneasy feeling to his brother and returned home. After about half an hour, the informant and her elder aunt (Badi Maa) also returned home but did not find Borta there. On enquiry the informant was told that Borta had gone to market to bring some change for making payment to the grass vendor. At about Sun set, the informant went inside for preparing food. In the meanwhile, her father retu...
The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. District Transport Officer an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC913; AIR2005Jhar47; [2004(4)JCR142(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The petitioner, a public limited company, challenges the order passed by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh holding that the vehicles held and possessed by the West Bokaro Colliery under the captive coal mines owned by the petitioner company are public service vehicles liable to pay additional motor vehicles tax with effect from 1.4.1983 or the date of registration of the vehicle, whichever was earlier. According to the petitioner, the vehicles are not public service vehicles liable to be taxed under the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, and Section 6 (1-A) of the Act was not attracted to the said vehicles. The claim is based on the plea that a public service motor vehicle as defined in that Act meant a motor vehicle used or adapted for the carriage of passengers or goods for hire or reward. The vehicles owned by the colliery were not used for carriage of passengers and goods for hire or reward. The vehicles were only used for the purpos...
Dhirendra Nath Hembrom Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR101(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This writ has been filed for quashing Annexure-4 by which the appellant authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as also the An-nexure-2 by which the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service against the petitioner.2. The short questions to be answered in this writ are :--1. Whether the enquiry was vitiated because a junior man conducted the enquiry in which senior person appeared as a witness who had made allegation on the petitioner?2. Whether, the disciplinary authority was justified in disagreeing within the finding of the enquiry officer without giving any opportunity to the petitioner before passing such order?3. Whether without serving any show cause notice the disciplinary authority could have passed the order of removal from service against the petitioner?4. Whether in the circumstances the petitioner has been prejudiced?5. Whether the appreciation of evidence Is perverse?3. The question aforesaid arise out of the followin...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1948; [2004(4)JCR158(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Tisco) and its General Manager, Town Services. There are various prayers in this writ petition, but essentially what is sought for is a declaration that Tisco is entitled to use the water of Subarnrekha River to the extent of its industrial and other needs, unimpeded by any Governmental control and without payment, quashing of the bill raised by the Government claiming charges for water consumed by Tisco from Subarnrekha River and impounded by Chandil Dam. The lands, some of which about the river, were originally acquired for the purpose of establishing an industry and its adjuncts by Tisco. Subsequently, the Bihar Land Reforms Act was enacted under which the lands acquired and handed over to Tisco, became liable to be surrendered in terms of that Act. There was a challenge to that enactment by Tisco and ultimately the dispute was compromised between Tisco and...
Bipad Taran and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4534; I(2005)DMC216; [2004(4)JCR422(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This quashing application is directed against the order dated 29.7.2002 passed in Case No. C-252 of 2002 whereby and where under the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 496/323/306/511/34 IPC.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the O.P. complainant Shyam Kishore Prasad filed a case being complaint case No. C-252 of 2002 against the petitioners under Sections 496/323/306/511/34, IPC alleging therein that in between the night of 10-11th April 2002 at about 12 O'clock son of the complainant Sandip Kumar @ Bobby had left his parents house and had been debarred from his paternal property and the complainant had no concern with Sandip Kumar @ Bobby and this fact has come to the knowledge of the accused persons, it is further alleged that Nandana Ray (@) Naina wanted to marry the son of the complainant, but due to the bad character of the said Nanada Ray @ Naina, Sandip Kumar @ Bobby was not ready to marr...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR1948; [2004(4)JCR55(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings including the order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Petition No. 65 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, certain observation was made relating to possession of Opposite Party No. 2 over the land in question. It was further observed that the petitioner has right to dispossess the said Opposite Party No. 2 from the land in question and thereby directed the Officer-in-Charge, Sakchi Police Station to give appropriate protection to the Opposite Party No. 22. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is against the order passed by a competent Court of law in Title Suit No. 692 of 1963 against one K.P. Mishra, who was the father of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the case was decreed in favour of petitioner on 10th March, 1975 in respect to land in question.3. The dispute relates to land measuring 0.0310 Hectors ...
Sharda Construction Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1684; [2004(4)JCR104(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. These are applications by a contractor under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the petitioner-firm, it had been allotted three contracts relating to the widening of National High Way No. 23 at three different stretches. They were identified as Job Nos. 515. 516 and 538. Claiming that the contractor had failed to perform his part of the contract in terms of the three independent agreements, the respondents made an adjustment from the amounts payable to it in one of the works and also refused to release the securities offered by the contractor. Claiming that it had completed the work covered by Job Nos. 515 and 516 and that those contracts must be closed, the petitioner approached this Court with a writ petition. The petitioner also questioned the attempted adjustment made by the respondents of the amounts allegedly due to the petitioner towards Job Nos. 515 and 516. towards Job No. 538. The respondents having disputed ...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Shashi Bala
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC233; [2004(4)JCR162(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad. J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 8.8.1989 and decree dated 21.8.1989 passed in Money Suit No. 22/84, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed on contest with cost.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent in brief is that the respondent is the sole proprietor of Mazda Cable Company, a company manufacturing and supplying various types of cables such as telephone cable of armoured, unarmoured, railway and control cables etc. The production of the plaintiff is also approved by the Director General of Mines Safety and many other Government and Semi-Government organizations including Government Company. In pursuance of tender invited by the defendant by tender notice No. PUR /702179/ Telephone-RC./81-82, plaintiff submitted quotations for the said under ground armoured telephone cables vide letter dated 11.6.1981 from her regional office at Hyderabad and defendant-appellant accepted the off...
Kamlesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC256; [2004(4)JCR122(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19th June, 2003 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's claim for grant of exclusive/ special privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of County Liquor for the period 2002-2005 in Dhanbad zone has been rejected and communicated.Petitioner has also prayed for direction on the respondents to issue necessary orders in his favour granting exclusive privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of Country Liquor in the Dhanbad zone.2. The brief fact of the case is that the respondents issued one tender notice on 12th January, 2002 calling for application for manufacture and wholesale supply of Country Liquor within the State of Jharkhand for the period from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2005. The petitioner applied for grant of exclusive/special privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of Country Liquor for the Dhanbad zone. Accord...