Jharkhand Court May 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.
Lakshmi NaraIn GoraIn and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR217(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. By the impugned judgment, the appellant No. 1, Lakshmi Narain Gorain was found guilty for committing the offence under Section 307, IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years for the said offence. The appellant No. 2, Sheikh Nashir was found guilty for the offence under Section 323, IPC. However, no substantive sentence was awarded to him and he was released on probation after executing the bond for a period of one year. The other three accused, who were tried alongwith these two appellants were acquitted from the charges by the impugned judgment dated 18.07.1991 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 18.03.1984 at about 11.30 a.m., while the informant Madhusudan Gorain (PW 5) was returning to his house on a bicycle and when he crossed the house of the appellant No. 2, Sheikh Nashir situated in village Baskuni, the appellants Lakshmi Narain Gorain, who was armed...
Sardar Paramjit Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar11; II(2005)DMC299; [2005(3)JCR337(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been filed by the Husband Sardar Paramjit Singh against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court as Dhanbad on 2nd September, 1999 in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 289 of 1995 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit being a suit under Section 13(1), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. As will appear from the records, a petition was filed by the respondent-wife in the suit under Section 24 of the Act, and the Family Court, after hearing the parties, passed the order on 7th February, 1998 directing the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite for maintenance of the respondent-wife and her child. The said order was challenged by the husband in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 466 of 1998(R) and the same was disposed of on 29th October, 1998 by reducing the amount of maintenance pendente Ute from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. As indicated ...
Awadesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR65(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Head Mr. Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. S.C.-I for the State.2. By order dated 5.11.2004 notices were issued to O.P. No. 7 to show cause as why he be not proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6783/2002.3. Pursuant thereto a show cause has been filed by opposite party No. 7.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Annexure-I to the contempt application this Court while disposing of W.P.(S) No. 6783/2002 on 12/3.2004 held as follows :'In that view of the matter, at this stage it cannot be said that the authorities have come to a definite conclusion that the appointment letter of the petitioner was a forged one and therefore his appointment was invalid.In view of the admitted position that no order terminating the service of the petitioner has been served on him, I direct that the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner till the date he is no...
Dronendu Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1648; 2006CriLJ911
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 22.5.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003.2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that this application has been filed to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court seeking protection of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which is being violated by holding trial of the petitioner in the matter of Dhanbad PS Case No. 183 of 2003 dated 22.3.2003 registered under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 793 of 2003.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the legal right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is being violated in the case of the petitioner, as this petitioner is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003...
Binod Kumar and Sujit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Secretary, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR71(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the positing/deputation of private respondents as Motor Vehicle Inspector on the ground, inter olio, that they do not possess the requisite qualification for being posted on the said post.3. It is stated in the writ petitions that there are 11 sanctioned posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector in the State when there are 23 districts and out of total sanctioned strength, four persons are working as permanent and regular Motor Vehicle Inspectors and four are on deputation from other Government departments. The petitioner's case is that they are unemployed Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering and possess requisite qualifications for being appointed on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector.4. At this stage, I am not inclined to decide the validity of deputation/posting of the private respondents on the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector. However, the fact, remain...
Krishna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR165(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the final publication made under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.2. Petitioners' case is that against the ex-landlord namely, Maharaja of Jharkhand Raj a ceiling proceeding was initiated under the aforesaid Act being Ceiling case No. 408 of 1973-74 and in the said proceeding final publication was made under Section 15(1) of said Act, illegally declaring the lands of plot No. 2770 and 2771, Khata No. 2 measuring area of 0.39 decimals of the said landlord/land holder. Petitioners' case is that aforesaid land was settled with the petitioner as far back as in 1942 by sada hukwnnama followed by acceptance of salami and grant of rent receipts. The State of Bihar granted rent receipts. Copies of both the hukwnnama and the rent receipts have been annexed as Annexures-2 series to the writ application.3. The respondent State, in their count...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1505; [2005(3)JCR263(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1032 of 2004 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-Company M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited has been dismissed.2. As will appear from the judgment under appeal, the writ petitioner-Company has challenged two orders contained in Letter No. 1494 dated 21st November, 2003 and Letter dated 17th January, 2004, whereby the Divisional Forest Officer, South Forest Division, Daltonganj, Medninagar, Palamau directed the writ petitioner-Company not to carry on mining operations without prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also not to use and undertake the repair work of the road known as 'Hami-Orsa Road'.3. The case as made out in the writ petition is that the appellant Company had applied for two mining leases for extraction of Bauxite in the districts of Latehar, Palamau, Lohardaga and Gumla w...
Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh @ Chora Master and ors. Vs. State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1463; 2005CriLJ3295; [2005(3)JCR284(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. These appeals and revisions arise out of the judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by Shri Binay Kumar Sahay, Additional Sessions Judge. XIII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2001.2. Appellants-Sheo Shankar Singh and Umesh Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2004 have been convicted of the charge under Section 302/34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Umesh Singh has further been convicted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. These sentences are to run concurrently.Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh, Bijay Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2004 and Md. Nuren Master @ Md. Nuren appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004 have been convicted of the charge under Section 302/120-B, IPC, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.Uma Shankar Singh, Premjeet Singh and Md. Zahid have been acquitted, against which Criminal Revision No. 135 of...
Nand Kishore Pandey and ors., Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR560(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. These writ applications raise common questions of law on almost identical set of foundational facts and as such the same as being disposed of by this common order.2. The grievance of the petitioners of all the writ petitions is that their services have been illegally terminated, purportedly on the basis of the Judgment passed in LPA No. 675/2000 by Patna High Court which according to the petitioners has no application in their cases, in as much as, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) filed against the said judgment, the Supreme Court has passed an interim order for maintaining status quo existing as on 13.10.2003. Before adverting to the main issue, it is relevant to notice the brief facts of each case separately.W.P. (S) No. 1658/2004The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 310, dated 3.2.2004 (Annexure-21) whereby terminating the petitioner's services. The petitioner was appointed as Amin (Mapak) in the office of the Special...
Jagdish Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR462(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties on the question of delay in filing the appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay. The application (IA No. 2546/04) for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. Having regard to the nature of the facts involved, the appeal is taken up immediately for disposal.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2004, passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition being WP (C) No. 5002/2004 upon holding that he did not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and challenged in the writ petition.4. As will appear from the order itself, the writ petitioner-appellant was challenging an order passed by the Additional Collector, Gumla, under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The aforesaid Act is a special Act, havin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »