Jharkhand Court June 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.
Jogesh Gambhir Vs. Secretary, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commiss ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR405(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that Appeal No. 226 of 2004 has been decided by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand without serving notice and without giving opportunity of hearing to. him. Further grievance of the petitioner is that although he has applied for the certified copy of the memo of appeal and other documents which are on the record but the same is not being given. Since the proceeding before Commission is a judicial proceeding, if any of the party makes an application for certified copy of the documents, the Commission is supposed to supply the same.2. I, therefore, directed the petitioner to file application for certified copy of the documents including the memo of appeal, which will be supplied to the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner has filed an application for inspection of records then the Commission is expected to pass appropriate order.3. This application is disposed of...
National Coal Organisation Employees Association, Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1801; [2006(107)FLR175]; [2005(3)JCR408(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. All these three writ applications are more or less similar and arising out of the same point of law, hence they are being disposed of by this single judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 5177/2002 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Lato Barhi for quashing the order dated 16.7.2001. whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 2 has refused to refer the dispute under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act and to direct the respondents to make a reference of dispute in relation to the petitioner of Basuria Colliery of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, to an appropriate Tribunal for adjudication.3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is working under respondent No. 3 as a pump operator at Gondudih Colliery under Kusunda area. He was employed on 31.1.1973 and his date of birth mentioned in the identity card is 12.8.1950 and he was shown to be aged 31 years on 19.12.1980. (Annexure 1). The respondent No. 3 issued service extract, vide letter dated 30.6.1996, in whi...
Gour Singh Mahto Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR60(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction restraining the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner in January, 2005.2. The petitioner's case is that he took training of Electrician Trade in the Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) and joined as apprentice trainee under the respondents in their training called C.T.I. and took further training in the trade of Electrician from 2.3.1973 to 3.1.1974. A certificate was issued to him in which his date of birth was shown as 16.10.1951. After completing the apprenticeship, the petitioner was appointed by the respondents on the post of Electrician on 21.5.1974. The petitioner, since thereafter, had been working in the Foundry Forge Plant of the respondents. In the month of December, 2004 the Senior Manager, Foundry Forge Plant intimated that the petitioner would retire in January, 2005. The petitioner claimed that since the date of birth was recorded in the training certificate as 16.10.195...
Somnath Tripathy Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR221(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as Enforcement Officer in the Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, has prayed for reinvestigation of the case in Garhwa P.S. Case No. 214/2000 under Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation is that petitioner was apprehended on the written information of Additional Superintendent of Police, Garhwa alleging that on 19.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. he went to the residence of the Superintendent of Police, where on Dr. Rajiv Kumar, employee of Bihar Caustic and Chemical Ltd. and one Chitranjan Kumar, Executive Magistrate, were sitting. Dr. Rajiv Kumar stated that his Commander jeep bearing No. BR 15P-0259 was seized by the petitioner. The petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000 for releasing the jeep and lastly it was agreed at Rs. 1,500/-. On this information, a raiding party was organized and currency notes bearing No. 58F 711551 to 58P 711600 of Rs. 10/-denomination, 50 in numbers were given to Dr....
Satya Narayan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR230(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.4.2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 39/2003, whereby and whereunder the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirmed the order dated 15.3.2003 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. Case No. 51/2002 in a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC.2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumka praying therein for drawing a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC on the ground that plot Nos. 169, 173 and 174 appertaining to Jamabandi No. 83 of Mouja Asanbani are the ancestral land of the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner and petitioner is the uncle of respondent No. 2, further case of the respondent No. 2 is that a family arrangement took place about 40 years ago in betwe...
Cosmas Bhengra and Reena Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(53)BLJR1374; [2005(3)JCR271(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the writ petitions, as common questions of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner Cosmas Bhengra of Writ Petition (S) No. 474 of 2005 has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 4808 dated 29th December, 2004, whereby and where under, he has been removed from service as a measure of punishment as envisaged under Rule 49 read with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Rules). The order of removal has been given effect from retrospective date i.e. 26th December, 2003 and issued under the signature of S.P., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.3. The main plea taken by the respondents to remove the petitioner from service is that the petitioner was under age by three days as per terms of advertisement.4. So far as petitioner Reena Kumari of Writ Petition (S) No. 532 of 2005 is concerned, she has challenged the ...
Shanti Devi Prasad and anr. Vs. Pratibha Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1626; [2005(3)JCR322(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners to quash the order dated 23rd June, 2003 passed by Shri A.R.K. Sinha, Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 1/83(A) read with order dated 10th November, 2003 passed by the said Execution Court. Further prayer has been made to direct the Court below to act in accordance with law and as per the order and decree of the Supreme Court of India.2. Brief fact of the case as appears is that the respondent Smt. Pratibha Singh entered into an agreement with petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad on 3rd November, 1976/4th September, 1979 to sell 8 (eight) Kathas of land in Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi out of her total holdings under her two sale deeds Nos. 11032 of 1975 and 7358 of 1976.On 17th September, 1981, petitioners filed a Title Suit No. 125 of 1981 against defendant Smt. Pratibha Singh and others for specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed in favour of petitioners on 18th Octobe...
Kumardhubi Metal Casting and Engineering Limited Vs. Kumardhubi Karamc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC134; [2005(3)JCR251(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This Company Petition has been instituted at the instance of Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter to be referred as 'B.I.F.R.), who vide order dated 8th March, 1996, sent its opinion under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to this Court that it is just and equitable that the Company, namely, Kumardhubi Metal Casting and Engineering Limited, a sick industrial company, be wind up. Accordingly, this Court by its order dated 17th August, 1999, passed in the present case, invoked power under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and ordered to wind up the Company. The official liquidator of the High Court was appointed as liquidator of the sick company, in question, who was also directed to take possession of all the assets of the Company.2. In the meantime, the Bank of India, who was earlier appointed as operating agency ...
Premchand Mahto and Gomia Devi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1552; 2005CriLJ3672; II(2005)DMC624; [2005(3)JCR253(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the trial Court and, as such, were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The appellant Premchand Mahto of Criminal Appeal No. 342/02 is the son of Gomia Devi and Pati Mahto, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 245/02. All the three appellants were tried together for the charges under Sections 302, 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 327/1998. The learned trial Court by judgment dated 06.06.2002, held all the three appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.3. In short the prosecution case is that Chinta Devi, the niece of the informant Chandradeo Mahto (PW 3) was married to the appellant Premchand Mahto. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given to the bridegroom according to the capacity of the bride's father. The relationship ...
Sukhdeo Lohra Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1604; [2005(3)JCR300(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1.This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sukhdeo Lohra against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th August, 1999 and 31st August, 1999 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial Nos. 402 of 1996/44 of 1996, arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 41 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, which is based on the fardbayan (Ext. 3) of one Baijnath Lohra (PW 8), brother of deceased Mangal Lohra, lodged on 29th March, 1996 at 11.30 am, is that on that very day in the morning hours, while he (Baijnath Lohra) was in his house, PW 3 Bhawra Mahto came and informed that his brother Mangal Lohra had been killed, so proceed with water. Thereafter, he left his house along with water for the house of Mangal Lohra, but having not fou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »