Jharkhand Court December 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.
Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1590
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J. 1. This revision has been preferred for enhancement of sentence, awarded to opposite party Nos. 2 to 9.2. Petitioner is the informant and she is aggrieved against the judgment of the appellate Court, which reduced the sentence earlier imposed by the trial Court, releasing opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 on probation of good conduct.3. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the facts placed before me, is that on 10-2-1999 at about 8 p.m. when the informant-petitioner along with her family members was at home, a group of persons, variously armed with lathis and rods, forming unlawful assembly, entered the house, beaten the informant and caused injury to her.4. After the complaint was made, it was taken up for investigation and final report was ultimately submitted against opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 341 and 147, IPC. The trial Court on the evidence adduced before it, while convicted opposite party Nos. 2 to 9, awarded ...
Hari Charan Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR319(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the Notification No. 1420 (S) dated 18th May, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been posted to his substantive post of Executive Engineer.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, juniors to him have been given charge of higher posts of Superintending Engineer, seniors like him, have been reverted to their substantive posts of Executive Engineer.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the State of Jharkhand has finalized the gradation list of Executive Engineers, published on 28th November, 2005 wherein name of the petitioner has been shown at appropriate stage. It was further submitted that the petitioner being a member of scheduled caste category, he is not only entitled for consideration of his case for promotion against the post of Superintending Engineer which is reserved for scheduled caste category but also agains...
Tayab Ansari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR69(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner was in the services of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'BCCL'), As per Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.), he obtained and has allowed voluntary retirement vide letter dated 4th December, 2002. The Provident Fund amounts not having been paid with statutory interest, the present writ petition has been preferred.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BCCL submitted that the authorities have forwarded all the records and other documents, relating to the claim of the petitioner, to the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-D-H, Dhanbad, -which is the Competent authority to pay the Provident Fund amount.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional Commissioner. Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-D-II, Dhanbad, raised certain disputes, regarding identity of the petitioner and submitted that in place of his .elder brother the petitioner impersonated and got the job and another lady has clai...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Nityanand Pandey
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1591
1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on being tried under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, on the allegation that they inflicted injury to PW-7, Manoj Kumar, were not found guilty by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Jharkhand.2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 6 p.m. on 20-8-2002 P.W. 7 went for a walk near his field. After sometime, the informant heard cries of his brother Manoj Kumar (P.W. 7) and when came out of his house, saw his brother Manoj Kumar being attacked by the respondents by Tangi and Lathi. Having received the injuries, Manoj Kumar fell down. According to him, the occurrence was witnessed not only by him, but also by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, a complaint was given, which was registered as Latehar P. S. Case No. 78 of 2002 (marked as Ext. 4). The injured, according to the prosecution, was taken to the Police Station from where he was sent to ...
Sadique Ansari Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1592
ORDERAmareshwar Sayay, J.1. The sole petitioner has challenged the Judgment of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa dated 30-4-1998 in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1997 whereby the two accused including the present petitioner were convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years each and also the Judgment dated 28-7-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 18/96 of 1998 whereby the, learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner against j the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 29th November, 1996, some miscreants holding lethal weapons, ran- sacked the house of Satyanarain Ojha in village-Kanchanpur to secure arms from the house owner, tied them with rope, collected them in a room, broke open the boxes, re- moved the ornaments, wearing apparels,radios, tape-recorder an...
Basudeo Modi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR225(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Jainagar PS. Case No. 35 of 2002, whereby, cognizance of the offences under Sections 304-B/34, IPC has been taken against the petitioners.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Court below has mechanically passed the said order without application of mind. Though there is no sufficient material making out a prima facie case against the petitioners for taking cognizance of the said offence against them.3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand submitted that the Court below has acted legally and has applied its mind properly and there were sufficient materials on record which prima facie make out the case under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code.4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the recor...
U.K. Pandey Vs. Birla Institute of Technology (a Deemed University) Th ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR339(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.1997 (Annexure-10) by which a decision of the Management for removing him from services was communicated, and for directing the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.3. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Clerk from 1985 but only due to some mistake in a bill the Management has dispensed with his services. Moreover, his prayer for engaging a lawyer before the Enquiry Committee, (which consisted of two advocates) was refused; and that he was not given the enquiry report; and that in any event the punishment is harsh. Petitioner's counsel relies on the judgments reported in 2002 (1) JCR 139 (Jhr), Dr. Kailash Vihari v. Birla Institute of Technology, 1996 (1) PLJR 435, Dr. Vidyapati Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and : (1994)ILLJ162SC , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors.4. According to the Management, it was not...
The State of Bihar (Now the State of Jharkhand) and ors. Vs. Shri Mahe ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR373(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The respondent-Mahesh Thakur was a teacher in a private school, namely, Murma High School, Murma. The school was recognized by the State Government with effect from 1st February, 1977 by an order dated 23rd June, 1977. The respondent-Mahesh Thakur was recognized as Incharge Headmaster of the said school. The school was taken over with effect from 2nd October, 1980 and respondent's service was also taken over and he was shown as In-charge Headmaster. But no order was issued appointing the respondent-Mahesh Thakur as a regular Headmaster nor his services were taken over as Headmaster and for that he continued to receive salary of a teacher. In the year 1998 he was transferred to another school vide order dated 30th December, 1998 which was challenged in the writ petition wherein in view of the interim order, he continued to function as In-charge Headmaster and ultimately the respondent-Mahesh Thakur superannuated on 31st January, 2003.3. The writ petition was...
B.A.P. Enterprises Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR341(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents, particularly upon the 5th respondent, to forthwith pay statutory interest, as provided under Section 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 on the amount of refund applicable for the years, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. It appears that for payment of such benefit the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (T) No. 4186 of 2002. A bench of this Court, vide order dated 29th August, 2002 observed that if the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 find that the petitioner is entitled to any refund and that such refund attracts the payment of statutory interest thereupon, they shall pay the amount in question along with such statutory interest to the petitioner within four weeks.3. It is informed that the amount has been refunded on 13th September, 2003, but statutory interest has not been paid.4. We have perused the explanation submitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit, but we are...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sheo Chand Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR402(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The respondents who were appointed on provisional basis were removed from the services of the appellant in the year 1981. Subsequently, in pursuance of the award in Ref. Case No. 58 of 1991, they were reinstated with their full back wages. Later on, for administrative reasons, the provisional appointment of the respondents was withdrawn which they challenged in WP (L) No. 4888 of 2003. The learned single Judge by order dated 17th November, 2003 set aside the said order and directed the appellant Management to regularize the services of the respondents and to give all benefits.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties, on 6th December, 2005, we had allowed time to the counsel for the parties to find out whether there could be a settlement with regard to the back wages. Today, when the case was taken up, no affidavit has been filed by any of the parties with regard to the claim of the back wages.3. In the circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the order of r...