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.
Md. Islam Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR363; [2005(1)JCR408(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, who was arrayed as one of the accused in a complaint case filed by O.P. No. 2, has challenged the judgment dated 28.4.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, XIII, Dhanbad, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order of learned trial Court, dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Cr PC and directed the learned trial Court to make further enquiry into the case for taking cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint petition.3. The facts in brief are that O.P. No. 2 Suresh Chandra Agrawalla filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad stating therein that he was the Power-of-Attorney holder of Ramesh Kumar Singhal, who purchased two Kathas of land of Plot No. 13, Khata No. 3 situated within Chirkunda police station from Smt. Sumitra Devi by virtue of a registered deed of sale on 6/11/2000 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/-. It was alleged that prior to the executi...
Jharna Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR170; [2005(3)JCR458(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, who is the informant, has challenged the judgment dated 26.5.2005 (sic) of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Courts) Jamtara, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Lakhikant Mandal from the charges under Section 376, IPC holding that no offence of rape as defined under Section 375, IPC is made out.3. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the learned trial Court held that the cohabitation was with the consent of the prosecutrix as it was apparent from the evidence that she was pregnant and on the alleged date of occurrence she was having 8 to 9 months pregnancy.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consent, if any, of the prosecutrix was on the belief that she was legally wedded wife of the accused and, therefore, the said consent of intercourse was ...
Shyam Sunder Bazaz Vs. Sanwarmal Jalan and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar109; [2005(2)JCR115(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Additional Munsif at Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 15 of 1997 whereby the Court below has refused to accept the additional written statement filed by the defendant No. 2-petitioner and also the order dated 19.2.2004 rejecting the prayer for recalling the plaintiffs witnesses for their cross-examination and directing the defendant-petitioner to produce their evidence.2. The petitioner is the substituted defendant No. 2 in the said suit. The said suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against M/s. Jethmal Satyanarayan in the Court of the Munsif praying a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default in making payment of rent under the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' or 'the B.B.C. Act'...
Laxmi Narayan Shaw Vs. Hari Ram Barhi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR500(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This second appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.1990 and decree dated 15.6.1990 passed in Title Appeal No. 8/74, whereby and whereunder the learned Second Additional District Judge, Dhanbad reversed the judgment dated 10.12.1973 passed in Title Suit No. 122/70.2. The plaintiff had brought the suit for eviction of the defendant No. 1 respondent from the house premises described in Schedule A of the plaint and for khas possession thereof and also for arrears of rent and the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff was decreed and being aggrieved by the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 122/70 the defendant preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed and judgment of the lower Court passed in Title Suit No. 122/70 was set aside and thereafter the plaintiff, who is appellant in this second appeal, has preferred this second appeal and in this second appeal substantial question of law has been formulated as under :'Wh...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Smt. Gulbasi Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR214; [2005(1)JCR506(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petition at flat 'A' has been filed for substitution of the legal heirs of deceased respondent, Vishwanath Ram, who died just before filing of this appeal on 31st July, 2003, leaving behind Kusumbhar Devi (window), Bhola Ram, Pradip Ram (sons) and Chand Devi (daughter).2. It is stated that Vishwanath Ram died just before filing of this appeal, so his heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4-7 to the memo of appeal. But as they were not parties before the learned Single Judge, leave has been sought to implead them as party-respondent in the present appeal.3. A caveat No. 176/2003 at flat 'C' has been filed by Smt. Gulbasi Devi and Mahendra Prasad Gupta, who were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge and they have not disputed the fact that Vishwanath Ram died after the judgment was delivered in the writ petition, but prior to preferring of this appeal.4. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has also appeared on behalf of Nagendra Prasad Gupta, who was another writ petiti...
The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR229; [2005(1)JCR366(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs :'For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the amount of sales tax paid by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9,96,87,607/- along with statutory interest thereupon from the date of realization till the date of payment which has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1426 of 2001 which was subsequently modified by order dated 3.5.2001 and the prayer for refund is also pursuant to, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.8.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. . 2188/2002 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption in terms of exemption certificate issued by the Joint Commissioner.For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 16.9.2004 issued by the Deputy C...
Jindal Roadways and Company Vs. the India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC461; [2005(1)JCR368(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to open the Price bid in respect of the Tender Notice invited by them on 5.7.2004 for removal and transportation of loose dump and top soil to dump yard, as the petitioner fulfills all the terms and conditions of the said Notice Inviting Tender (in short NIT).2. Pursuant to NIT issued by the respondents, petitioner submitted his tender alongwith orders. There has been correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents regarding submission of all the documents and the petitioner said to have deposited all the documents including Sales-tax clearance certificate. Petitioner thereafter, by letter-dated 5.11.2004 requested the respondents to arrange for opening of price bid of the eligible contractors including the petitioner but the latter is lingering the matter on one pretext or other. By filing amendment petition, petitioner has prayed for, quashing the letter dated 26.11.2004 issued by the Deputy General Manag...
Bindeshwar Prasad Nayak and ors. Vs. Bitan Rabidas
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar95; [2005(2)JCR13(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 20 of 2003, whereby the learned Court below has refused to accept the petitioners written statement on the ground that the same has been filed after the delay of 18 days over and above the period of 90 days as prescribed under the law.2. The petitioners' case is that although Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedures prescribes 90 days' time, yet, this Court in the case of Lalit Chandra Raisurana v. Arun Raisurana, reported in 2004(4), JLJR, 428 has held that the Court has power to extend the period for filing written statement beyond 90 days, for further 30 days under the provision of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if good cause is shown for the delay. In view of the said decision, the time for filing written statement can be extended upto 120 days from the date of re...
Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR537(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard in part.2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BSIDC) submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners as the petitioners are among one of the share holders out of a number of share holders and other share holders have not been impleaded as party to the instant writ petition.3. It is stated that the provision of Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act is not applicable in the present case.4. We have perused the prayer made in the writ petition and the facts pleaded including the prayer as made at Clause (D) of paragraph 1.5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we want to know from the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation :--(i) whether the BSIDC or the State of Bihar intends to take steps to wind up Bihar Air Product, Jamshedpur? If so, then in what capacity and under which provision of law? and(ii) whether the S...
Rajendra Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR975; [2005(1)JCR355(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. In all the writ applications the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.11.2004 and 17.11,2004 issued under signature of Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and Chiabasa respectively whereby the petitioners, who are the Assistant Teachers, have been transferred from one school to another school. The orders challenged by the petitioners in all writ petitions and the authorities issuing the same are given below :Case No. Date of order Issuing AuthorityWPS 6200/2004 6.11.2004 Regional Deputy Director ofEducation, SouthChotanagpurDivision, Ranchi.WPS 6287/2004 6.11.2004 Regional Deputy Director ofEducation, SouthChotanagpur Division, Ranchi.WPS 6304/2004 6.11.2004 Regional Deputy Director ofEducation, SouthChotanagbur-cum ChaibasaDivision,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »