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.
Reeta Mishra and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC702; [2004(4)JCR119(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Petitioners in this Criminal Writ Petition have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 947 of 2003. lodged under Sections 323, 341, 306, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act., pending in the Court of Sri O.P. Singh, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.2. The allegation, as levelled by the complainant Priya Pandey (Opposite Party No. 2) in the complaint petition against these petitioners and others, is that all the accused persons, named therein, are related, inter se, as husband, dewar, mother-in-law, father-in-law and maternal cousin-in-laws (mousi sas). The complainant was married with accused No. 1 Manish Pandey (not petitioner herein) on 30.5.2002 at Ranchi. Her father paid Rs. 5,51,000/- towards dowry demand and also spent a huge amount in the marriage. Prior to the marriage, on the occasion of ring ceremony on 18.4.2002, these petitioners (mousi...
Manohar Singh Neech (Tak) Vs. the Regional Labour Commissioner (Centra ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR320(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is by the appellant, respondent No. 3 in CWJC No. 824 of 2000 (R). Respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service for gross misconduct. He challenged that under the Industrial Disputes Act and the order of dismissal was upheld. He filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court challenging that award. The writ petition was dismissed. He filed Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of the writ petition. That was also dismissed. Thus the dismissal of respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, the appellant before us, for the gross misconduct became final. Thereafter the appellant claimed that he was entitled to gratuity and moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (the Act). The management resisted the claim by pointing out that the appellant has been dismissed from service for gross misconduct arid in terms of the relevant provision of the Act, his gratuity has been / forfeited. The Controlling authority dismissed the claim of the appellant. ...
Fertilizer Corporation of India, Sindri Unit and ors. Vs. Bijay Shanka ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR99(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The substantial question of law framed for answer in this case are as follows :--'I. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable?'II. Whether the lower appellate Court could have ignored the date of birth recorded in the service book of the plaintiff at the time of his entry into service specially in view of the provisions of the certified standing orders applicable to the appellants' undertaking?2. At the time of hearing, it is fairly admitted by both the parties that the framed substantial question of law No. 1 is not required to be answered because it was never an issue before either of the Court i.e. trial and appellate Courts.3. The facts out of which the question has arisen are shortly that the plaintiff, who had applied for the post of Beldar and who, at the time of his application, had studied upto Class VI, had declared his age to be 24 years, but no document in support thereof was produced by him. Thereafter, he was appointed ...
Satya Prakash Mishra Vs. the Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR272(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.S. Lall, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents and Mr. Ananda Sen for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed-off at this stage.2. The petitioner, in the instant case, makes a prayer that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 should be directed to make payment of a scale of salary based on the principals of equal pay for equal work because he has been working right from 29.1.1988 till date without any break as a Teacher in the Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Phusri on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500/- per month which was given to him as per his letter of appointment issued on 29.1.1988 as contained in Annexure 3. The claim of the petitioner in relation to a scale of salary is directed against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 because according to him notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to continue right from 1988 in that School ...
Vidya Bhushan Prasad @ Bidya Bhushan Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR523(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.2. Earlier this petitioner had filed ABA No. 840/2004 which was disposed of by order dated 19.7.2004 by this Court. Subsequently on the Mentioning Slip. on 3rd August, 2004 it was observed that as the anticipatory bail of this petitioner was earlier disposed of by this Court with certain observations, hence either he may surrender and pray for regular bail on the basis of the observation made therein, in the Court below itself or he may file a fresh ABA in this Court itself. Consequent upon the order dated 3rd August, 2004 this ABA has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Vidya Bhushan Prasad @ Bidya Bhushan Prasad) has submitted that this petitioner stands on the similar footing as that of the other co-accused who has been enlarged on bail in ABA No. 669/2004 on 18.6.2004.4. The allegation in the FIR is that Demand Draft in, question was passed by this petitioner (Vidya Bhushan Prasad @ Bidya Bhushan...
Musud Alam and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR743(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Dubey. counsel for the appellants, in detail.2. The learned single Judge refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the undue delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. It is seen that the petitioners who are untrained and who were appointed in the year 1983, were terminated in the year 1985. There was a direction by the Supreme Court in an appeal from a judgment of the Patna High Court regarding the line of action to be adopted in respect of persons aggrieved like the writ petitioners. That course was apparently adopted and an advertisement was issued in the year 1994 and the process for implementation of the direction' of the Supreme Court was taken-up. It is the case of the petitioners that the direction of the Patna High Court In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court has not been complied with.3. The prayer of the writ petitioners is to issue ...
Sunil Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR93(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The parties agree that this case may be disposed off in terms of order dated 10.12.2003, passed in WPS No. 5989 of 2003 (Annexure-15).3. Accordingly the following order is being passed.4. In this application, the order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 29.8.1998 is under challenge, whereby the direction was made to cancel the appointment of 382 employees by issue of letter as contained in Memo. No. 6255, dated 29.8.1998. This very order was under challenge before this Court in a number of writ applications, being WP (S) No. 3769 of 2001 and analogous cases, which were disposed of by order dated 7.3.2003 by quashing the same very order dated 29.8.1998 with a direction to issue notice to show cause to all the affected persons.5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the present case is fully covered by the order passed in WP (S) No. 3769 of 2001, dated 7.3.2003 which have already been disposed of by this Court.6. In that view of...
Rajesh Kumar Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1554
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 20-12-2003 passed in O.C.R. Case No. 175/ 2003 corresponding to T.R. No. 592/2004 and all subsequent proceedings thereto, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, IPC.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that the petitioner-informant lodged a written information with the Officer, Incharge of Taljhari P.S. for the occurrence dated 29-6-2003 at about 12 PM for commission of offence of lurking house trespass and theft of the properties from the house of the informant-petitioner by the accused Naresh Panit with some unknown criminals, who took away Rs. 45,000/- in cash and also 20 Jar of Dalda, 25 tins of mustard oil, 50 Kgs. Jeera, 10 dibba of coconut oil and other grocery articles, all amounting to Rs. 25,000/- from hi...
Mongli Soren Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR416(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. There was initially a confusion with regard to the genuineness of the petitioner's claim on the basis of the statements made in the Counter Affidavit, but when a Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the said Counter Affidavit, the respondents have filed a Reply to the Rejoinder wherein they have stated at paragraphs 6 to 8 that the petitioner's husband, namely, Baijo Manjhl was a Badii T. Stacker/Loader and was deployed in place of a permanent employee as and when vacancy arose. Relying on the statements made by the petitioner that her husband unauthorisedly absented from duty from 29.12.1987. These respondents have further stated that the name of her husband was recorded as Badli Worker of Gopinath Colliery and that his name recorded at Sl. 2223 showed his appointment on 28.12.1981 and in the remarks column, his date of death was mentioned as 05.12.1989, in that view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has sta...
Jharia Oraon Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1735; [2004(4)JCR216(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant Jharia Oraon has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7th July, 1997/8th July, 1997 passed by Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 80-93, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 172/92 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 685/92, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. On 11th August, 1992 in the morning, the father of the informant, namely, Birsu Oraon (deceased) was grazing his cows in the Kripanagar village and the informant Fekla Oraon (PW 5) was ploughing in the same field. One Mangra Oraon (PW 3) who is step brother of informant was grazing his field nearer to the field of informant. The accused Jharia Oraon who is a co-sharer and uncle of the informant was watering his field, informant's cousin, Biria Ora...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »