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.
Uma Shankar Prasad Srivastava Vs. the Vinoba Bhave University Through ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR91a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhuri accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 4. The State of Jharkhand is being represented by Mr. M.K. Laik, Senior Standing Counsel No. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent to grant him the U.G.C. pay scale on the basis of the 5th Pay Revision being effective from 1.1.1986 and to pay him the amount till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31st July, 2004. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Lecturer in the department of Economics on 5th July, 1976 in Chas Mahavidyalaya, Chas and was confirmed to the said post. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Reader on 20th September, 1989, but later on, reverted to the post of Lecturer. Ultimately, he retired on 31st July, 2004 from the Chas Mahavidyalaya. His grievance is that the authorities have not granted him scale of pay as per the recommendation of the U.G.C.3. It appea...
Md. Imam HussaIn Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ455; I(2005)DMC493
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-4-2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2000, dismissing the Revision filed by him and affirming the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 from the date of filing of the application by her.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted that there was no valid marriage between the parties. It is submitted that according to the Muslim law, the Nikahnama must contain signature of at least two male witnesses but in the alleged Nikahnama, which was produced by the claimant-wife, there was only one witness of the marriage and therefore it was not fulfilling the requirement of law and, as such, the marriage was not valid.4. It was further submitted that the signature of the petitioner appearing in the s...
Jagarnath Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ451; [2005(1)JCR388b(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1312.1999 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad and the order dated 26.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled.2. Petitioner is the holder of a rifle bearing No. 11563 and licence No. 2/90 under Putki Police Station. On a complaint from OIC, Munidih (Dhanbad), the Deputy Commissioner suspended the licence of the petitioner and he was asked to file show- cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. Since the petitioner was involved in a case instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337 and 448, IPC, he was directed to deposit his arms and submit a show-cause in a cancellation proceeding initiated against him. The Deputy Commissioner having not satisfied with the show-cause submitted by the petitioner, passed an order for cancellation of the licence. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner,...
Jyotindra Nath Ganju Saki Vs. State of Bihar, Through Secretary Water ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR680(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. This writ has been filed for a number of reliefs for which cause of action arose during different periods right from the year 1981 to 1995 and in respect of different cadre of posts which the petitioner occupied time to time have been clubbed. Thus, it appears that the case is stale, but since the petitioner had been able to show that right from the very beginning he had been making representation after representation for redressal of his grievances and even after his rctireme.it and those were not disposed of also he has filed the writ. As the petitioner was always pursuing the matter, the matter cannot be said to be stale, though the whole matter has become complex.3. To cut short the matter the petitioner claims his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 2.1.1978 instead of 25.2.1981 and in the scale of Superintending Engineer with effect from 17.1.1989 instead of 19.10.1989. These are the two basic reliefs...
Mozaffar Alam Ansari @ M.A. Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)4; 2004(3)BLJR2052; 2005CriLJ1534
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner including the order dated 13.5.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 443/2002. T.R. No. 797/2003, whereby and whereunder cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, has been taken and also for quashing the order dated 5.6.2003, by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that the opposite party No. 2, filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 443/2002 stating therein that the complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm, which is run in the name and style of Hardware and Machinery Stores. The principal office of business and showroom is situated and located at Muslim Bazar, Giridih, P.S. Giridih and the complainant is the authorized dealer of Generator of the various brand. It is further alleged tha...
Hari Narayan Mahli @ Hari Narayan Ram Mahli Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2098
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. It appears that an application was filed by one Nageshwar Rai against one Hari Narayan Mahli, for initiation of a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr PC. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi by order dated 12.12.2000, directed the Executive Magistrate to hold enquiry and report. Subsequently, by order dated 10.04.2001, after receipt of the enquiry report of the Executive Magistrate and on consideration thereof, initiated a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC with regard to the lands in question and directed to issue notice to the parties. Subsequently, on 18.04.2002 a petition was filed on behalf of the first party Nageshwar Rai that he has already sold the land in question to some other person and, therefore, he does not want to continue with the proceeding as first party and, therefore, his name be deleted from the proceeding.3. On the same day one another applicati...
Tanuja Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ398
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-12-2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 93/1999, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.2. Prosecution case in brief is that the opposite party No. 2, who is complainant in complaint Case No. 93/1999, filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was working as Incharge Head Mistress, Indira Gandhi Girls School and in that capacity she invited tenders for sale of Ambassador Station Wagon car bearing registration No. BHM 8800 and the same was published in Daily Newspaper' Hindustan' on 25-11 -1995. The opposite party No. 2 complainant also filed JV/KV/Jha515/2004/GSD/MPP/MAD/33191/2004 his tender along with a Bank Draft of Rs. 2000/-. In the said tender three other persons had also participated and they had...
B.P. Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand Through C.B.i.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR138(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Sidharath Shankar Ray, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.2. The petitioners, who are all senior officers of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited have prayed for the privilege of Anticipatory Bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 9(A)/1997(D) under Sections 406, 407, 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.-cum-First Additional District and Sessions Judge), Dhanbad.3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of Anticipatory Bail on account of the fact that investigations have revealed that each of them are responsible for causing loss to the exchequer through an offence which is now commonly known as the 'Bitumen Scam'. He refers to pages 51 to 57 of the p...
Nathuni Ram Vs. Raghupat Ram and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR477(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The only substantial question to be answered in this appeal is 'Whether the Court of appeal below wed ill law in rejecting plaintiff's claim over 14 decimals out of total 36 decimals land of plot No. 51. when raiyati settlement obtained in 1342 Fasli was not negatived'. No liberty was given to urge any other question and for that, no other question has also been raised.2. The question aforesaid arose out of the short fact that the plaintiffs father got 0.76 acres and 0.36 acres of land in plot No. 11 and 51 respectively as gairmanzarua malik land and thereafter there was a partition between the two brothers and plaintiff and in his portion, the plaintiff raised a house and inducted the defendants as tenants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs name was also mutated in L.R.D.C. record and substantial Jamabandi was opened. The Jamabandi was opened in the name of the defendants which was beyond the jurisdiction and therefore, the plaintiff tiled the suit for declaration...
Bhado MahtawaIn Vs. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR299(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner to show cause on the respondents as to under what circumstances her late husband was forced to retire pre-maturely on 31st May, 1996 and to command the respondents to treat her late husband as on duty till his death. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to provide her consequential benefits and the family pension.2, Counsel for the SAIL referred to the order dated 28th March, 1996 (Annexure-1) and submitted that the husband of the petitioner late Shiv Charan Mahto on attaining the age of superannuation (58 years) was retired on 31st May. 1996. Neither any objection was made by him nor he moved before any Jorum or any Court of law against the order of retirement.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the date of retirement of the husband of the petitioner.4. So far as retiral benefit or family pension is concerned, if the benefit was not paid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »