Jharkhand Court April 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.
Kausik Sinha and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4789; I(2006)DMC97; [2005(4)JCR219(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.1999 passed in C.P. Case No. 918/98, whereby the whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad took cognizance under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners.2. Facts leading to the filing of the complaint case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint stating, inter alia, therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 on 7.6.1995. She was leading a peaceful marriage life at her matrimonial home but a few months thereafter petitioner started expressing his views that the dowry given in the marriage is meagre and the petitioner Kausik Sinha, at the instigation of others; started demanding Rs. 5.00 lacs for investing the said amount in business. They also started demanding a share in the house of the father of opposite party No. 2 f...
Niranjan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ301
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the first information report of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 6/ 2004 dated 11.1.2004 under Section 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that earlier to this first information report, one more first information report was lodged at Chirkunda P.S., which was drawn up on the written report, dated 2.6.2003, of Niranjan Agarwal to the effect that Niranjan Agarwal is carrying on the business of transporting goods and the same was being done in the name of his firm M/s Allied Carriers, Dhanbad. On 15.5.2002 at about 6.30 AM he received a call from one Sharmaji of S.S. Roadways of Bokaro that he supplies vehicles on rent for Haryana and as such, on enquiry from him, it appears that the charges for the same to be taken to Hissar in Haryana. The charges were settled at Rs. 1,110/- per tonne and he requested this petit...
Ladhu Lakra Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR410(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both the applications (Cr. Misc. No. 10675 of 1998 and Cr. Misc. No. 851 of 2000) have arisen out of the same case and are being disposed of by common order.2. Cr. Misc. No. 10675 of 1998(R) has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.11.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 1995 whereby and where under the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi passed order for framing the charge and also framed charge against the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 302/149/148/307, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, whereas Cr. Misc. No. 851 of 2000(R) has been filed for quashing the orders dated 5.1.2000 and 2.7.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 1995 whereby and where the petitioner was summoned under Section 319, Cr PC to face trial and by order dated 5.1.2000 prayer to revoke the order dated 2.7.1997 was dismissed and prayer for anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the petitioner was directed to be filed before the learned Judicial C...
Narsingh Jha, keshri Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR95(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 3/Arop606/2004 No. 84, dated 18.5.2004 as contained in Annexure-12 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service with immediate effect by way of punishment awarded in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 3100, dated 27.8.2004, as contained in Annexure-13. issued by the Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the sum of Rs. 1,96,417.50 has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed in the year 1980 on the post of Assistant by Office Order No. 214, dated 10.6.1980 after following the due procedure for appointment. Thereafter his service book was opened and his date of birth was recorded ...
Ajit Paswan and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(53)BLJR1729
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mrs. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned APP.2. In this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.3.2005 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-FTC No. 1 Dhanbad rejected the prayer of the petitioners to recall the prosecution witnesses namely, Rakhi Kumari (PW 3) and her father Suresh Paswan (PW 2) for re-cross-examination/ further cross-examination because, the prosecution and the accused compromised the case and they settled their dispute.3. The petitioners were facing trial for commission of the offence under Sections 376 and 109 of the IPC. Altogether six prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined including the prosecutrix Rakhi Kumari (PW 3) and her father Suresh Paswan (PW 2) as well as the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. At this stage a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners purported to be under Section 311, Cr PC stating therein that the prosecution party...
Goyel Brothers Ghatsila Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR457(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In the instant request petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent person as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arose out of a contract.3. Petitioner M/s Goyel Brothers is a firm carrying on business of civil and transport contracts who pursuant to advertisement issued by the Irrigation Department Subernrekha Multipurpose Project submitted tender for the work of excavation and bed lining of Galudih Right Bank Main Canal. Petitioner submitted tender which was accepted and work order was issued in 1984 and the work was to be completed by 9th October, 1986. Petitioner's case is that the work could not be completed because of non-fulfillment of contractual obligations by the respondents. Petitioner alleged to have made series of correspondence with the respondents but even the bills for the work done was not cleared because...
Eastern India Cements Private Limited Through Its Adviser Vs. State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR334(Jhr)]
1. The appellant had prayed for quashing of the notice published in the Newspaper on 21st January, 2005 and 7th February, 2005 whereby the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BICICO') had decided to put the Unit of the appellant-petitioner on lease to intending parties and also to put the said Unit for auction sale. The learned single Judge has chosen not to interfere with the matter since the appellant-petitioner had not made any substantial payment against the amount which they had obtained from BICICO.2. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the said order of the learned single Judge. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Delip Jerath submits that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the offer of one time settlement which had been made by the BICICO which the appellant-petitioner could not avail of on account of the method used in calculating the amount claimed to be payable on account of such ...
Kartik Prasad Vs. Parsadi Pandit
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR319(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision against the order dated 25.1.2005 passed in T.D.S. No. 246 of 2003 by learned Sub-Judge II, Deoghar whereby the petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.2. The plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 246 of 2004 praying for a decree of declaration of his right, title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also for declaration that the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 97 of 2000 dated 6.6.2000 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 10.4.2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37 of 2003 are null and void.3. The defendant petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not tenable as the suit property was acquired on the basis of a certificate granted by Bhoodan Yajna Committee and no suit can be fi...
Banshi Mahto and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR843; [2005(3)JCR119(Jhr)]
ORDER1. When these appeals were filed the office put up a note indicating that in terms of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from any decree of the High Court passed in an appeal, an appeal would lie to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The matter was, accordingly, submitted for orders with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.2. In order to appreciate the objection indicated by the office, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is set out:54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. -- Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the prov...
Bishnu Dayal Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-22-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC459; [2005(4)JCR392(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code') has been filed for quashing the orders dated 23.2.2005 (Annexure-5), 25.2.2005 (Annexure-7), 5.3.2005 (Annexure-10), 7.3.2005 (Annexure-11), 9.3.2005 (Annexure-13) and order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure-14) passed in C-46 of 1999.2. Facts giving rise to filing of this application are that a complaint case No. C-46 of 1999 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by the complainant O.P. No. 2 Pawan Kumar Gupta in which he impleaded his own brothers petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and his father petitioner No. 3 as accused alleging commission of offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('N.I. Act' in short). It is stated that on a number of occasions both sides came to the High Court in certain matters and directions for speedy trial of the case were made. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »