Jharkhand Court September 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.
Saheen Saba Banoo Vs. Md. Manzoor Alam
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1896; [2004(4)JCR646(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Both First Appeal No. 88 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2000 have been filed by the wife Saheen Saba Bano against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad whereby the Court bffelow has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for restitution of conjugal right Under Section 281 of the Mohammadan Law and dismissed the criminal case filed by the wife Under Section 125, Cr PC for maintenance. Since both the eases arise out of the common judgment, they have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.2. The facts of case lie in a narrow compass :The appellant was married with respondent Md. Manzoor Alam on 22.3.1994 and out of the wedlock one son and one daughter were born. The plaintiffs respondents's case was that after solemnization of marriage to appellant went to the matrimonial house and both of them started living marital conjugal life. In the year 1999 the appellant, alleged to have ...
Udai Bhan Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR713(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance .of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 passed by Shri P.K. Sinha No. II, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi in R.C. 7(A)/92R whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively'and in default thereof to under rigorous imprisonment for one month each under both the counts. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the first information, report (Ext. 10) lodged before Delhi Special Police Establishment Ranchi Branch by PW 8...
Chittaranjan Sahay and ors. Vs. Ashutosh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR313(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The instant review petition has been filed by above named five petitioners for review and/or recall of that part of judgment and order dated 1.4.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in Civil Review No. 10/2002 whereby although this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held that the review application No. 10/2002 is not maintainable because no ground warranting the review of the judgment and order dated 26,2.2002 passed in WPS No. 6006/2001 is made out, the Curt thereafter to passed a detailed and specific direction giving liberty to the petitioners therein i.e: contesting respondents-1st set lo make representation to the Central Government seeking redressal of their new grievances. For better appreciation order dated 1.4.2002 sought to be reviewed is quoted herein below :'In this review application these five petitioners have sought a review of our Judgment passed on 26.2.2002 in WP (S) No. 6006 of 2001. That writ petition had arisen from out of an Order pa...
Aakrit Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2316
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2-9-2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in C.P. Case No. 481 of 2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.2. The Opposite Party No. 2, Dr. Raj Narayan Raj filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 2-8-2002 against the petitioner and his wife Umravati Devi alleging therein that he had purchased a Mahendra Jeep bearing No. JH-11/A-2953 from the wife of the petitioner. It is alleged that after using the vehicle for some time, he thought to resale the said vehicle to the petitioner and, accordingly he offered the petitioner to purchase of the said vehicle and then the petitioner is said to have agreed to purchase the same and both the parties agreed to the price of the vehicle at Rs. 1,16,000/-. Accordingly, a written agreement was executed between...
Md. Muslim Ansari Vs. Satya Narayan Dhudhani and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR319(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the learned Munsif 1st at Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 2003 whereby the petitioner-tenant has been directed to deposit the amount of arrears of rent from April 2002 to May 2004 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month in the Court below within a period of 15 days and further he has been directed to pay the current rent of every month in the Court below till 15th of the next following month.2. The grievance of the petitioner-tenant is that by the impugned order of the Rent Controller passed in H.R.C. Case No. 36 of 2002, he has been depositing the amount @ 350/- in the name of the landlord-plaintiff and that the rent from the Month of April 2002 to up-to-date has already been deposited in the Treasury in compliance of the said order and that it will be a double burden on him, if he is compelled to deposit arrear of rent from April 2002 to up-to-date ag...
State of Bihar Through Deputy Commissioner Vs. Suresh Prasad,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR484b(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. As these three appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Special Sub-Judge in I.A Case Nos. 17 of 1993, 18 of 1993 and 19 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the learned Court fixed the rate of done and Tand land at the rate of Ks. 500/- and 400/- per decimals respectively. besides the Court also directed for payment of solatium @ 30% and 9% Interest for one year and 15% Interest after one year on enhanced amount, accordingly the Award of the Collector all the three cases was modified, hence they have been taken together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. All the lands were of village Tumang, Police Station Khelari. District Ranchi and all the claimants have received compensation awarded by the Collector on protest.2. Admittedly by declaration No. 1 of 1986-87 dated 16.2.1986 published in page No. 227 and 228 Part-2 of the Bihar Gazette under Section 18 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the lan...
Rishi Cement Company Ltd., Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR683(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. All these writ applications have been taken together because the common question 'to be answered in them is the same. In all these writ applications, two questions have been raised - (i) Whether the fuel surcharge as per the Tariff, 1993, is just and reasonable and (ii) Whether the other charges under clause 16.10.4 is leviable2. It has been agreed by both the parties that so far the second question is concerned, the other charges have been struck-down in the decision reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 130, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (1997) 11 SCC 380. Therefore, bill cannot be raised on that. But it has been said that the amount has been paid. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the current fuel surcharge at the current rate as per Tariff 2001 is being paid. The amount that has been paid by the petitioners on account of the other operational surcharges shall be adjusted from the bills against the fuel sur...
Divakant Jha Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR688(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground.2. According to petitioner, his father, late Deo Narayan Jha was in the services of the J.S.E.B. and died in-harness on 7th August, 2002 while posted as Messenger in the office of Electric Supply Division. Deoghar. Thereafter, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground within time and his case was recommended on 24th October, 2002. Thereafter, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dumka Area, Dumka has forwarded the matter to Headquarters at Ranchi but no final decision has been taken by the authorities.3. In the facts and circumstances, as the matter requires determination firstly by the respondents, instead of asking them to file counter affidavit, the case is remitted with liberty to the petitioner to, bring''the matter to the notice of the Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi, who in his turn will enquire into...
Raj Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR692(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. According to petitioner, he was in the services of the State Electricity Board and while posted as Superintendent of Training in Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, retired on 31st August, 1998. His grievance is that the respondents have not yet paid him the salary in the revised scale w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 nor paid the dues, such as difference of pay, leave encashment, gratuity, commutation of pension to which he is entitled in view of revision of pay. He has enclosed a chart showing the details of payment to which he is entitled.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as it is for the respondents to determine firstly whether the petitioner is entitled for those benefits on revision of pay or not, instead of deciding the case on merit, the case is remitted with liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, P.T.P.S., Patratu, who will determine the claim. If any amount is found payable, the respondents will ...
Bhavneet Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1550
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this criminal revision application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 6-6-2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro in G.R. case No. 11/2001 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and they were directed to be present for framing of charge.2. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint filed by the Excise Inspector before the Officer in charge of Bokaro police station. For the years 2000-2001, in the district of Bokaro, 48 retail foreign liquor shops and 23 spiced country spirit shops were settled in one lot with the petitioners as also one Hardip Singh and Deepak Kumar Patel by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. It was alleged that the licensees were not able to lift the required quota of liquor and thereby caused losses of revenue. On raid being conducted by the Excise department, large number of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »