Jharkhand Court January 2005 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.
Sahdeo Rai Vs. Laxman Rai
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR102(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This second appeal, at the Instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 22.6.1990 and decree dated 31.7.1990 passed in Title Appeal No. 19/88/789, whereby and whereunder the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Giridih affirmed the judgment dated 1.2.1988 decree dated 12.2.1988 passed in Title Sit No. 39/87 by Munsif, Giridih.2. It appears that plaintiff filed a title suit for specific performance of contract for directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of Schedule A land given at the foot of the plaint after receiving Rs. 2000/- from the plaintiff and for delivery of khas possession to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that defendant executed a registered deed of agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed land on payment of Rs. 2000/-within a period of 17.2.1982 to 17.2.1987. The plaintiff went to the defendant with Rs. 2000/- in the year 1986 several times, tendered the amoun...
D. Baraik Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR113(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation, whereby an order of punishment by way of dismissal and recovery of amount has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The petitioner was posted during the relevant time as Assistant Office Superintendent in the respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short the Corporation) in 1997 at Palamau Branch of the Corporation and he was served with charge sheet alleging that he has committed gross misconduct, serious irregularity and gross negligence in duty and responsibility and acted in the manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation in discharge of his duties. The allegation was that during his posting at Palamau Branch at Daltonganj in 1997, while dealing with the loan file of M/s Sri Katha and Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Chandwa (earlier M/s Chandwa Wood Product) he, in connivance...
Mohd. Quashim Vs. Noor Mohammad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR115(Jhr)]
Hari Shanakr Prasad, J.1. This second appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 11.4.1989 and decree dated 25.4.1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 68/15 of 83/88, whereby and whereunder the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned lower Court passed in title Sit No. 37/81.2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a title suit being suit No. 37/81 for partition and claiming 1/4 share each for the plaintiffs and the defendant in the land and house property measuring 12 1/2 katha situates at Mauja Bhandaridih, PS Baghmara District Dhanbad over the plot No. 1 within khata No. 3 on theground that father of the plaintiffs and defendant had acquired the suit property and it was in possession of father of the parties and out of the suit property 5 katha of land was acquired by their father by registered deed and 2 katha by a hukumnama during the years 1922-39 and after hav...
Vinoba Bhave University, Through the Vice-chancellor and ors. Vs. Imam ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR717; [2005(2)JCR49(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. In both the appeals as common question of law are involved and most of the parties are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the Letters Patent Appeals arise of out one judgment, passed by the learned Single. Judge. A writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1078 of 1999 R was preferred by the writ petitioners-respondents herein for a direction on the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the University') appellant herein, to hold examination of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed. for short) of the students of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 2 Al-Habeeb Teacher's Training College, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Institution') on the ground that the Institution had been granted recognition by the State Government for the Sessions 1991-92 onwards till 1st July, 1995 where the Central Act, namely, Nation Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short 'N...
Harish Munjal and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR56(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners seek direction upon the respondent particularly respondent No. 4 Circle Officer, Ranchi to accept rent and grant rent receipts in respect of the landed property of the petitioner, which was purchased as far back as in 1959.2. Petitioner's case inter alia is that their predecessor in interest namely, Jiwan Lal purchased 2.90 acres of land comprised within plot Nos. 1947, 1948 and 1949 under khata No. 79 of Mouza Booty by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 2.12.1959 which was executed after obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in Misc. case No. 34-R (8) of 1959-60. Thereafter, the name of Late Jivan Lal was also mutated in the office of the Circle Officer being Mutation Case No. 51-R 27/1960-61.3. Petitioner's further case is that although land was legally and validly purchased but the heirs of recorded tenant filed application for restoration of land un...
Management of Bokaro Steel Plant Vs. Balram Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR548]; [2005(2)JCR53(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant (hereafter referred to as the Company) against the Award dated 6th March, 2003, pronounced on 29th March, 2003 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 37/1994, whereby and where under, the reference has been answered in favour of workman, Balram Mahto (respondent).2. The brief facts of the case are that the workman, Balram Mahto was appointed, to the post of Khalasi in Bokaro Steel Plant and joined on 15th November, 1977. At the time of joining the service, he filled up Personal Data Form declaring his age and submitted the same to the Management. As per Clause 8 (b) (ii) of the Standing Orders of the Company, once the workman entered his date of birth/age in the Personal Date Form, he cannot question the correctness of his age, so entered in the Personal Data Form. The Management of the Company treating the age of workman ...
Anand Swaroop Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR657; 2005CriLJ2306; [2005(3)JCR467(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners, named above, against the orders dated 29th November, 2004, 30th November, 2004 and 1st December, 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 46 of 1999. By order dated 29th November, 2004, the learned Magistrate, while rejected the objection, raised by the petitioners regarding admissibility of a document, filed by the complainant at the stage of defence, also rejected the time petition, filed by the accused-petitioners to grant one day's time to examine one of the defence witnesses and closed the defence evidence. Further by order dated 30th November, 2004, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition, filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, by order dated 1st December, 2004 the learned Magistrate while rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioners for passing necessary order at that sta...
Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1347; 2005CriLJ2318; (2005)197CTR(Jharkhand)156; [2005]275ITR268(Jharkhand); [2005(3)JCR397(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Actg. C.J.1 This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated July 19, 2003, passed by the Special Judge (Economic Offence) at Jamshedpur in Case No. C/1-441 of 1992, whereby and whereunder, he refused to discharge the accused persons under Section 245 of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner of the present case in M/s. T.R.F. Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), having its works at Burmamines, Town Jamshedpur, District--Singhbhum (East).3. The case of the petitioner is that the company filed its income-tax return for the financial year 1982-83 (assessment year 1983-84) on September 23, 1983. In the said return, the company declared a total loss of Rs. 1,80,85,820. Income was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 16,85,510. T...
Rakesh Kumar Choudhary @ Rakesh Choudhary Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR923; 2005CriLJ2314; [2005(3)JCR440(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16th July, 2004, passed in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, while passed the order, impleading the petitioner as an accused in the above-noted case under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has ordered him to face trial along with the other accused and has further issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against him for his appearance.2. Brief fact of the case is that an FIR was instituted on the basis of the fard beyan of one Prabhu Bedia dated 14th May, 2001, wherein the informant (Prabhu Bedia) alleged that his son Ram Charan Bedia was working as Security Guard-cum-Driver under Rakesh Choudhary, Builder, D.V. Palace, Ranchi and along with him Rajesh Bedia @ Rashoraj Bedia, Jitu Bedia, Haricharan Bedia and Ajay Karmali were/are also working as security Guard-cum-Driver. It has been alleg...
Partha Sarathi Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1343; 2005CriLJ2309; [2005(3)JCR413(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. In all these cases, petitioners, who are common, have challenged orders taking cognizance all dated 12th November, 2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella for the offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954') in connection with three cases i.e. C/2 Case No. 73/2003; C/2 Case No. 72/2003 and C/2 Case No. 67/2003, now pending in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella.2. The brief fact of the cases is that the respondent, Sri Mahesh Pandey, Food Inspector, Jamshedpur filed three complaint cases against these petitioners alleging therein that on 18th August, 2003 at 2.30 P.M., they (accused persons) exposed and sold cold drinks, which were found mis-branded. It was alleged that on the same day (18th August, 2003), the accused persons were selling cold drinks, such as Mountain Dew; 7-UP; Pepsi and Mirinda Orange, out of them...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »