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 Bank of India, R.i.T. Branch Vs. Bihar Central Trading Company ( ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar33; III(2005)BC75; [2004(4)JCR424(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd April, 1992 and decree dated 3rd July, 1992 (decree having been sealed and signed on 3rd July. 1992) passed in Money Suit No. 12 of 1983 whereby the learned Sub-Judge' 11, Seraikella decreed the suit in part.2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that defendants-respondents is a small scale industrial unit within the Industrial Area, Adityapur and other respondents are the partners of the said industrial unit. The defendant No. 7 Bihar State Finance Corporation represented by the Branch Manager, BSFC. Jamshedpur and defendant No. 8 Ashok Kumar Jha are proforma defendant whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are principal defendants and they are partners of the firm M/s. Bihar Central Trading Company, Defendant No. 1 had approached the plamtriff-bank for cash credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 2.40 lakh only for their working capital which was granted on or about 13,9.1979 on execution of necessary ...
Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant Through S.S. Bhar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR526(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 arises out of an Order dated 31.3.2004 passed in WP (S) No. 1628 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has directed the appellants to show-cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court after holding that they have committed such contempt.2. We wish to deal with the Writ petition first so as to enable us to decided the dispute between the parties and also to come to a conclusion as to whether the appellants of L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 have, in fact. committed contempt or not.3. in the writ petition, there are petitioners and each one of them submit that they are Category-1 displaced persons ad the their names, after verification, had been forwarded to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 8. for purposes of appointing them but since nothing was being done thereafter, a writ of mandamus should therefore be issued directing the said respondent No. 2 to include their names in Category-I and...
Dr. Krishna Kant Sinha and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4771
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 21st July, 2003, passed by Sri Sanjeev Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Ranchi, in Case NOC-III268 of 2002, which was registered for the offences under Sections 22 and 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, rejected the application, preferred by the petitioners under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') to dispense with their personal appearance and to allow them to be represented through their lawyer during trial.2. It appears that a case has been filed by opposite party No. 2, Labour Superintendent. Ranchi, against one M/s. Advance Diagnostic Central, Bariyatu, and these two petitioners as its Director and Manager. It has been alleged that on 22nd June, 2002 at about 12.10 p.m. an inspection of the establishment of M/s. Diagnostic Center, Bariyatu, was made ...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Jaiguru Tyre Sales and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC438; [2005(1)JCR82(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This Money Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16th day of October, 1993 (decree signed and sealed on 25.11.1993) passed by Sri Sharangdhar Singh, Subordinate Judge, Seraikela in Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 7 of 1988, whereby and whereunder he has pleased to decree the suit in part with 6% simple interest directing the respondents/defendants to make payment the dues in thirty six installments and also without cost of the suit.2. The Indian Overseas Bank on an application of the defendants sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9.01 Lacs on 17.9.1979. The defendant respondent No: 2 Lily Purkayastha wife of Col. P.C. Purkayastha (Retd.) defendant respondent No. 3 had applied for loan as they had a business functioning as M/s. Jaiguru Tyre Sales, a Sole Proprietorship concern having its office and factory at C-14 Phase VI, Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur, District Singhbhum (East). The advances were made in following manner :-(i) Term loan-I for constructio...
Shailendra Rajak Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR318(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner prays for direction to respondents to permit him to a participate in the ensuing B. Ed. examination of the Session 2002-03 (wrongly mentioned as 2003-04) to be conducted by Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh.3. Petitioner's case is that he appeared for the said examination held in 1994 for the Session 1990-91 from the Government Teacher's Training College, Hazaribagh but failed in one paper and thereafter no such examination was held.4. The stand of the Vinoba Bhave University is that petitioner is not registered with the University. Vinoba Bhave University bifurcated from Ranchi University on 17.9.1992, but the said examination in which petitioner appeared was held by Ranchi University. No examination in the college in question was held, as by the order of the State Government (Bihar) all the State Training Institutions including at Hazaribagh were closed Recently affiliation of those institutions including the college in quest...
(Smt.) Dhaneshwari Devi Vs. Dasharath Sao @ Daso Sao and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC376; [2005(1)JCR88(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. In this Second Appeal the question to be answered is :Whether the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 7459/- from the Savings Bank Account will give rise to a presumption that respondent No. 1 had paid part of the consideration amount?Defendant plaintiff who is related to the respondent No. 1 as sali (the sister of the wife of respondent No. 1), brought a suit against him that his name (Dasrath Sao @ Daso Sao, respondent defendant No. 1) was fraudulently included in the sale deed No. 7024, dated 4.6.1982 as purchaser No. 2 in collusion with the scribe Girdhari Ram defendant No. 4 which has not created any right and possession to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the land-bearing plot No. 4506 under Khata No. 26 of village Mandai Khurd, Thana No. 163, P.S. and District Hazaribagh in which a tided house was constructed by them. In the month of May 1982 defendant No. 2 and 3 expressed their desire to sell the aforesaid property and inform Gumani Das abo...
Kanhaiya Lal Bansal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR436(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both these applications having been preferred by the same petitioner, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.In Cr. M.P. No. 800 of 2003 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24th February, 2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhan-bad, in F.A. Case No. 249 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the Court below has taken cognizance as against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Further prayer has been made to set aside all the proceedings consequent thereto, now pending in the Court of Sri M.P. Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanabad.In other case Le. Cr. M.P. No. 801 of 2003 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th February, 2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhan-bad, in F.A. Case No. 253 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences against the petit...
Kanhai Das and ors. Vs. State of Bihar Through Deputy Commissioner and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2089; [2005(1)JCR44(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Panchu Oraon and others filed an application under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi for restoration of 1.05 acres of Plot No. 1501 and 1.10, acres Of Plot No. 1502 within Khata No. 148 on the grounds mentioned in their application. The Special Officer by his order dated 15.5.1992 contained in Annexure-2 to the present writ application, directed the opposite party therein, namely, Ramsatya Yadav and others to restore the possession of the lands in question to the applicants holding that the transfer of the land was made in contravention of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.2. Thereafter Kanhai Das and others filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi against the aforesaid order of the Special Officer, stating therein that they were not made parties in the proceeding before the Special Officer, though they have validly acquired the land in question and substantial st...
Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2029
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 372 of 1997, which has been registered under Sections 498A, 323 & 504, IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From the FIR, it appears that the Informant, wife of the accused petitioner herein, alleged that her husband and her in-laws named in the FIR started torturing her due to non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry.3. The petitioner filed application before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.A No. 5410 of 2001 after the prayer was refused by the Sessions Judge, Palamau on 18.10.2001. Admittedly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was refused by this Court after considering the same on its merit vide order dated 4.12.2001. However, the other accused persons were allowed anticipatory bail.4. It appears that after the prayer for anticipatory bail was refused by this C...
Most. Mulia Devi Vs. Secretary Jharkhand State Electricity Board and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR77(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Bihar State Electricity Board.2. It is submitted that petitioner's husband died in harness on 17.4.1997 as un-skilled Khalasi from Electric Supply Sub-division, Loyabad, Dhanbad. It is further submitted that some of the retiral benefits have no been paid such as arrear pension, GPF with permissible statutory interest for which she made representation also before respondent No. 1.3. Learned counsel appearing for Jharkhand State Electricity Board does not dispute the liability of JSEB to pay the dues. However, he submitted that petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3.4. Under the circumstances, petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3, who will look into the mater. If he finds that any legally payable amount is due to the petitioner, the same should be paid to her. If he finds that any claim/part of it is n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »