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.
Vinay Kumar Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR725; 2005CriLJ2830; [2005(2)JCR328(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioners in this application is for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2003, whereby the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, rejected the petition under Section 239. Cr PC filed by the petitioners for their discharge.3. Further prayer has been made to issue direction to the Court below to proceed in the light of the order and direction dated 04.01.2000 of this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 180 of 1996 (R), whereby this Court while allowing the Revision Application against the judgment of acquittal remanded the matter back for retrial, according to law and to decide the same after hearing both the sides.4. A First Information Report being Mango P.S. Case No. 002 of 1992 was registered under Sections 419, 420 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. The aforesaid case was tried and by judgment dated 09.07.1996 (Annexure-2), the learned ...
Akhilesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR446(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with C/I Case No. 117/2002 including the order dated 2-8-2002 passed by C.J.M., Palamau. whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 323 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner and others stating therein that he is a 'Chamar' by caste and is the District President of Bahujan Samaj Party. He had made a representation in respect of the ill deeds of the petitioner and had brought to light all the misdeeds and illegal act of the petitioner and when in spite of said representation there was no improvement in the Block Development Office and e...
Fulindar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4795; [2005(3)JCR444(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 31st March, 2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 43 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khunti dismissed the complaint petition under Sections 364/386/323/347/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that on 2-6-2002 the petitioner, who is complainant of complaint case No. 43 of 2002, filed a complaint case stating inter alia therein that he along with his son Shankar Mahto went to village Mal-sining and purchased two ox for Rs. 9.500/-. It is further stated that on the same day one Manoj Kumar Akela @ Chhedi forced him to see the girls for marriage of his son. The complainant and his son found a girl suitable for marriage with Shankar Mahto, then accused No. 1 to 6 Chamru Sao, Dhunuwa Sao Paras Sao., Chhedi @ Manoj Kumar Akela, Baiju Sao and Chhedi Sao for the pur...
Arya Kumar Lal Vs. Chairman Bseb and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR145(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Writ petition (WP)(S) No. 1709 of 2002 was preferred by the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits and other dues. It was disposed of on 14th March, 2002 with direction to the respondents to decide and pay the admitted dues. The order of the Court having not complied, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) Case No. 553 of 2002 was preferred by the petitioner. In the said case the Court, taking into account that certain amount was paid by Cheque dated 20th December, 2003, disposed of the contempt application vide order dated 6th January, 2004 without taking any action against the opposite parties. However, while disposing of the contempt, case, liberty was given to the Board to recover a sum of Rs. 7,966.60 paise which was paid to the petitioner by way of interest from the salary of opposite party No. 6.2. In the present application, the petitioner has sought for modification/ clarification of order dated 6th January, 2004 passed in Cont. (Civil) Case N...
Domco (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar81; [2005(2)JCR3(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 1592 dated 29.11.2003 issued under the signature of the Secretary, R.R.D.A., Ranchi whereby the petitioner was informed that the land in question has been shown as partly open space and partly residential and further for a direction that the land and building in question cannot be declared as open space in the Master Plan.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. Petitioner owned and possessed the land together with building commonly known as 'Gol Kothi' comprised within Khata No. 360, R.S. Plot No. 1133 situated at Mouza Missir Gonda Kanke Road, Ranchi having been purchased by virtue of registered deed of sale from the rightful owner. Petitioner thereafter decided to construct multi-storied building in the said plot and, therefore, applied to the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short P.R.D.A) for Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). In response to the said applicati...
Vasant Vihar Through Its Proprietor Vs. the Steel Authority of India L ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR238(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 5942 of 2004, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.1.2004, dismissing the writ petition. The prayer of the appellant in the said writ petition was for a direction to the concerned respondents to allot the City Park Restaurant at Bokaro Steel City to the petitioner in terms of Notice Inviting Tender No. TA/TC/4.5/OT-2/27/7/17, dated 28.6.2004 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Tender Cell), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City and for quashing the direction, as contained in Reference No. TA/D/ 01/420/3026, dated 22.10.2004 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner had been directed to close the restaurant and hand over the vacant possession. Subsequently, the petitioner also added a prayer for quashing the letter as contained in Reference No. TA/D/01/420/2044, dated 2.11.2004 whereby the writ petitioner was again directed to close the said restaurant and hand...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ashim Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Yasom ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Jharkhand)23; [2005]275ITR48(Jharkhand); [2005(2)JCR262(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J and Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. As in both these cases, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna referred common question for this Court's opinion, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.Tax Case No. 13 of 1993 (P) :2. In course of a raid conducted on 9th September, 1986 at the residences of the assessee, cash amounting to Rs. 16,300/- was found and assessed to be the income of the assessee. The explanation was submitted at the time of assessment before the Assessing Officer, but it was not accepted. By order dated 24th September, 1987, the Assessing Officer held that a sum of Rs. 16,300/- was unexplained and added it to the income of the assessee. It was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (Appeals)' for short) in ITA No. 320/RAN/87-88. CIT (A) by its judgment dated 8th March, 1988 accepted the explanation s...
Kalika Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR756; [2005(2)JCR81(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of punishment dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure 6) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka as contained in order No. 170 of 2001 and Memo No. 1098/Estt/Dumka.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner, Kalika Prasad Sinha was working in the District Treasury Office of Dumka, when he took charge of the post of Senior Accountant from one M.P. Verma, who had retired and in the year 1996 an FIR being Dumka (T) PS Case No. 15 of 1996 (State v. Dr. N.N. Verma and Ors.) was registered for forged and illegal withdrawal of Government money from Government Treasury, although he was not named in the FIR, but he was put under suspension with immediate effect, i.e., from 14.2.1996, vide memo No. 438/A on the ground that investigation of the criminal offence against the petitioner although he was not named in the FIR. Some time Dumka (T) PS Case No. 15 of the 1996...
Mostt. Ghamia Vs. Mostt. Tipri Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR86a(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 15.6.1990 and decree dated 25.6.1990, passed in Title Appeal No. 95 of 1988/6 of 1989 whereby and whereunder learned Additional District. Judge IVth, Giridih dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 28.6.1988 and decree 8.7.1988, passed by learned Additional Munsif IVth, Giridih in Title Suit No. 75 of 1987.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit being Title Suit No. 75 of 1987 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in case plaintiff is found to have been dispossessed from the suit land and the learned Court of Additional Munsif IVth, Giridih framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidences both oral and documentary decided the issue and dismissed the suit. As against dismissed of the suit by judgment dated 28.6.1988 and decree 8.7.1988 the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal ...
Md. Yusuf Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR125(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner's prayers are four fold :(a) For quashing the office order No. 128, dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure-13).(b) For quashing the office order No. 37/2001, dated 2.6.2001 (Annexure-13/1).(c) For directing to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the next higher scale of pay w.e.f. 2.5.1996 correcting the wrongly mentioned date of promotion to Senior Selection Grade.(d) For directing the respondents not to recover the amounts paid as annual increments to the petitioner on the plea that the annual increments were not payable before passing Hindu Noting and Drafting Examination.3. The petitioner prayed for addition of one more prayer by an amendment petition, when during the pendency of this application, a sum of Rs. 10,260/- was deducted from the petitioner's salary without assigning any reasons, which was allowed by this Court.4. The petitioner's case is that he joined the service of the Bihar State Electricity Boar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »