Jharkhand Court February 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.
Sarswatia Devi and anr. Vs. Amrit Bhuiya
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC419; [2005(3)JCR487(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.2. In spite of fact that several times, notices were issued to the sole opposite party, but he did not care to appear. By the last order dated 22.2.2005, notice issued to the sole opposite party, was accepted as validly served, but even then, the opposite party has not appeared and, therefore, this application is being disposed of on the basis of materials available on record and after hearing the parties.3. The petitioner have challenged the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, rejecting the petition under Section 125, Cr PC filed by the petitioners i.e. husband and wife. The opposite party is working in M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as per the statement of the petitioners.4. From the impugned order, it appears that learned Spl. Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, has rejected the prayer of the petitioners relying on t...
Budhan Sharma and ors. Vs. Nizam Sheikh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR143(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The tenants are the defendants-appellants. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 1 of 1994.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity.3. The defendants contested the suit stating, inter alia, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus there was no question of any default in payment of rent or eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed several issues. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidences. Learned trial Court considered and discussed the facts, materials and evidences on the record, and came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the defendant is the tenant on a monthly Rent of Rs. 30/- per month and that he ha...
Tarani Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR368a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for compassionate appointment against Class IV post. According to him, his father (late) Kolai Gope, who was in the services of the State, died in-harness, while posted in Government Plus 2 School, Chalbasa. According to the petitioner, his father was initially appointed as Akasmik Bhritya (Contingent Menial) and later on taken against Class IV post of peon.2. He placed reliance on the service book of his father and certain orders, issued in favour of other persons, stated to be similarly situated like late Kolia Gope. It is stated that they were also earlier appointed as Akasmik Bhritya (Contingent Menial) and later on regularized against Class IV posts of peon.3. Counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that there is nothing on the record to suggest that late Kolai Gope was given appointment against Class IV post of peon. From the service book. It appears that he was appointed vide Memo No....
Harish Munjal and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR565
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners seek direction upon the respondents 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. Petitioners' case inter alia is that their predecessor in interest namely, Jiwan Lal purchased 2.90 acres of land comprised within plot No. 1947, 1948, 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 und...
Kalara Kharian and ors. Vs. Bhairo Nagasia @ Ganesh Nagesia and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR211(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is against the Judgment and decree of reversal passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gumla whereby, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside allowing the plaintiffs appeal.2. The plaintiffs case was that the land measuring 4.72 acres bearing Plot Nos. 559, 995 and 142 appertaining to khata No. 51, Mauza Goja Bartola, Police Station Palkot, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of Sanu Kharia in the Revisional Survey Record of rights. Subsequently, Sanu Kharia died leaving behind his son Ghasi Kharia, who succeeded to his father and came in possession of the said land (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land). In the year 1938, Ghasi Kharia surrendered the said lands before the landlord Ban Bihari Lal by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 2.4.1938 in favour of the ex-landlord. Thereafter the landlord came in possession and in the year 1944 settled the land in favour of the plaintiffs by a Sada Hukumnama f...
Jyotilal Singh Vs. Srikant Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR316(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. At the time of admission of this appeal, two substantial questions were framed :--'(i). Whether the S.D.O. had the right to entertain and dispose of the suit without indicating that power was delegated to him?(ii). Whether the Court was justified in going into the merit of the claim of the party?'2. This appeal arose out of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant who was the objector before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order had gone against him appointing the defendant as Pradhan in a proceeding for appointment of Pradhan of village Dhobona. He claimed to be the Jamabandi Raiyat of Mouza Dhobona @ Kalajhoria within the P.S. Nala. The appellant subsequently filed a suit being T.S. 41/43 of 1976/1983 for declaration that the appointment of the defendant as Pradhan was not in accordance with law and is void. The admitted case of the parties was that after the death of the father of the defendant, the defendant as well as the plaintiff claimed themselves as ...
Jamuna Das Sarda @ Jamuna Das Sarda Vs. Smt. Rita Lal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar15; [2005(2)JCR367(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner-appellant has prayed for modification of the order dated 8.7.2004. By the said order this Court while staying the execution of the impugned decree had directed the appellant to pay the decreetal arrear amount of Rs. 2,77,405/- in six monthly instalments and the current rent of each month at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-. It has been stated in this application that already four instalments have been paid to the respondents which come to Rs. 1,55,000/-. He has also paid the arrears of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to the current rent which has been also paid at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondents. Thereby, only Rs. 92,405/- remained to be paid towards the decreetal amount. It has been stated that the petitioner is an old man aged about 85 years and his only source of income is the shop running in the premises and in all he has paid about Rs. 3,65,000/- by now from July 2004 within a short span of time and he has...
Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR365a(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner, by the instant writ petition has approached this Court with a serious grievance that because of the pendency of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-I, Bokaro, Chas, the substantial amount attached in the said suit together with the security deposit has been withheld and the same has not been released.2. It appears that in the aforementioned Money Suit No. 19 of 1978, an interlocutory order was passed by the Court below which was challenged before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1980(R). In the said appeal, Lower Court record was called for and the same was sent by the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad to this Court on 29.7.1981. The aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1980(R) was disposed of on 30.8.1989 and the Lower Court record of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 was sent to the Court of Subordinate Judge-II, Dhanbad in 1989 and the same was received at Dhanbad. On 2.1.1990, as per order of the District Judg...
Jatinder Singh Hanspal and anr. Vs. Tejinder Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar8; 2005(1)BLJR722
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since in these two writ petitions common question of law is involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P.C. No. 822 of 2005, the defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 158 of 2003 whereby he has rejected the petitioner's petition for accepting written statement for which the petitioner was debarred earlier. 3. Similarly in W.P.C. No. 823 of 2005, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa in Partition Suit No. 28/1998 whereby he has refused to recall the earlier order dated 10.8.2004 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement.4. The only question that falls for consideration is whether the Court in its discretion extends the time for filing written statement beyond the period fixed under the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Co...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. their Workmen, Being Represented by the Pr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR801; [2005(2)JCR269(Jhr)]; (2005)IIILLJ158Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 12th September, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 3479 of 2001, whereby and where under, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, affirmed the award dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 8/93.2. The reference was made at the instance of Sponsoring Union, namely, National Coal Workers Congress. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred upon it under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act), referred the following disputes to the Tribunal for adjudication, vide Order No. 1. 200012/353/91-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 17th December, 1992 :'Whether the demand of National Coal Workers Congress for employment on the roll of Khas Kusunda Colliery of BCC...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »