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.
Ghulam Subhani Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3067; [2006(1)JCR147(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This quashing application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 1-4-1998 passed in Complaint case No. G., 52/98, whereby and whereunder the learned CJM took cognizance of the offence under Section 188, IPC.2. Facts briefly stated are that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated on the basis of an application filed by the opposite party No. 2 on the land in plot No. 62 of khata No. 24 of village Korra, district Hazaribagh and later on by amendment plot Nos. 61, 63 and 64 were also included in the proceeding. It was alleged on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that on 26-10-1996 the petitioner, on the basis of fraudulent document, had started demarcating the land in plot No. 62, which necessitated initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. In the said application there was no allegation that there is any apprehension of breach of peace, which is the essential ingredient of drawing of proceeding under Sec...
Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Gyanendra Sahay
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR377; [2005(105)FLR543]; [2005(1)JCR525(Jhr)]; (2005)IILLJ822Jhar
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'M/s. TISCO') against the judgment dated 3rd June, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3802 of 1999-R; whereby and where under, the writ application, filed on behalf of the appellant, has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Gyanendra Sahay was appointed as Management Trainee under the appellant M/s TISCO and placed up to the rank of Deputy Manager. In the year, 1993 he was transferred in the Mines Division and again in the year, 1994 he was posted to perform his duties in the Engineering Cell.According to the appellant, the respondent submitted an application on 1st April, 1995 for his premature/voluntary retirement with a request to consider his case for payment of ex-gratia amount, in view of his long association with the Company. The application for voluntary r...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Bishwanath Gope and ors. and Basant Ku ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR425(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar against common order dated 15th June, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in different contempt cases, including Cont. Case (Civil) Nos. 229 of 2002 and 175 of 2002. The learned Single Judge having noticed that the petitioners/ respondents were working on daily wage for the last twenty years, observed that they should not be thrown in the street by passing order of termination and further observed that if there is any technical difficulty in the way of regularisation of their services because of want of sanctioned post, the Chief Conservator of Forest shall approach the State Government for sanctioning the posts so that the persons who have been working for last twenty years, should be given due justice at least after twenty years.2. In the present appeals, the main plea taken by the appellants State of Jharkhand that the writ petitioners are working in the State Trading Division, such as Saran...
Naveen Kumar Singh Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its C ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR418; [2005(1)JCR519(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board posted only about nine months ago at Adityapur Circle, Jamshedpur, has been made victim of political maneuvering and conspiracy and has been transferred from Adityapur as a measure of victimization by the impugned order of transfer dated 2.12.2004.2. Petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Adityapur Circle which is an industrial area. He alleged to have started taking stern action against those consumers who were illegally consuming electricity which resulted in filing of a complaint dated 3.11.2004 by the Adityapur Small Industries Association. They, in their complaint to the Member (T & D), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, alleged that petitioner is harassing the entrepreneurs and, therefore, he should be transferred. That complaint was followed by another letter written by Jharkhand Janjagaran Vikas Pa...
Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR896; [2005(105)FLR204]; [2005(1)JCR428(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 6850, dated 22.7.2004 issued under the signature of Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Judicial Member in Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (in short CESTAT) has not been forwarded to respondent No. 1, the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.2. On 11.1.2005 this matter was taken up and adjourned to 19.1.2005 directing the Registrar General to file counter affidavit. Pursuant to this order a counter affidavit has been filed.3. It appears from the record that the petitioner firstly moved before the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No. 530 of 2004, which was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The petitioner thereafter moved before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. ...
Jharkhand State Commercial Taxes Bar Association Through P.K. Lala, Se ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR523(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This Public Interest Litigation was preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to appointed the Chairman and the Members of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand at Ranchi and to provide the infrastructure in the said tribunal for its proper and smooth functioning in public interest.2. During the pendency of the writ petition and in view of one or other order passed by this Court, the State of Jharkhand has already appointed the Chairman of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal and the Member (Accounts). One post of Member (Departmental) is lying vacant. It is informed that the post of the Member (Departmental) is being filled up by posting of a senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department.3. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the respondents. Mrs. Alka Tiwary, Commissioner -cum-Secretary, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department, Jharkhand referred to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondents and informed the...
Dr. (Mrs) Usha Nath Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR278(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Non-Resident Indian, submitted a house plan to the respondent RRDA in April, 1995 along with fee of Rs. 11,400/-. The fee was paid by demand draft. The petitioner at that time was an NRI practicing in United Arab Emirate as Consultant Obstetrician & Gynecologist and now she is desirous to return India from UAE.2. The petitioner's case is that she was never informed about the sanction of the plan. However, after coming to India when she inquired, she was informed by the respondent--RRDA that her plan was not sanctioned due to some defects and was rejected in 1999. The said rejection was communicated to the petitioner in 2002. The petitioner, thereafter, by letter dated 27.3.2003 was informed that the fee deposited by her, shall not be refunded and she will have to submit a fresh plan if she so likes. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 27.3.2003 and seeks an order directing RRDA to accept the same fee and sa...
Akhil Kumar Sinha and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3071; [2005(3)JCR437(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. These two applications (Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2003 and Cr. Revision No. 481 of 2003) under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code') are directed against the part of the order dated 29-3-2003 passed in T.R. No. 1299 of 2002 in Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2003 and T.R. No. 840 of 2003 in Cr. Revision No. 481 of 2001, both arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No, 111 of 2000 dated 1-6-2000 and in both the applications, same question of law and facts are involved, hence they are Being disposed of by common order.2. Facts briefly stated are that the O.P. No. 2 complainant filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih and the complaint case was sent to the P.S. concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code for institution and investigation of the case and on the basis of which, police registered a case being Giridih (T) P.S., Case No. 111 of 2000 under Sections 406/408/409/466/468/477/1...
Prodadi Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR230(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath for respondents. 2. Petitioner prays for her appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground against death of her husband, namely, Amrit Mahto who died in an accident while on patrolling duty on 25.5.2002. 3. According to petitioner, her case is covered by the judgment dated 20.2.2004 passed in the case of Gayatri Devi v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P. (S) No. 2613 of 2003, reported in 2004 (2) JCR 192 (Jhr). 4. Mr. Jerath tried to distinguish the said case and submitted that in the said case husband of petitioner was killed in an encounter with the extremists whereas in the present case the petitioner died in a road accident. 5. It is not disputed that petitioner's husband died in a road accident while he was on patrolling duty. It is also not disputed that the said judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) has become final as no appeal has been preferred against the same. It is held in the said j...
Deepika @ Sumitra Bhandari and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR914; 2005CriLJ3070; [2005(3)JCR411(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal. J.1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.2. In the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.6.2002 passed in Baliapur police station case No. 52/2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2420 of 2001 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The allegation, inter alia, made in the first information report is that on 1.9.2001 three persons, namely, Ajit Pramanik, Shiv Prasad Mahato and Manik Pramanik informed the informant that his son, Deepak Bhandari was missing from his in-laws' house since the last night. The informant started searching for his son and when he was unable to trace him out, he alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »