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.
Pradip Kumar Tiwary and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR295(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the order as contained in letter 4.3.2005 issued under the signature of Law Secretary, Law Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioners, appointed as Special Public Prosecutors, have been debarred from conducting the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2002 pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.2. The case of the petitioners is that a criminal case being Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2002 pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Siwan has been transferred to Ranchi for trial by the order of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (CRL) Nos. 3, 94-98 of 2001. It is contended that by the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioners along with their juniors were appointed as Special Public Prosecutors to conduct the trial of the aforesaid Sessions Case having been appointed by the Law Department of Bihar by letter dated 2.7.2002. However, respondent No. 4, the son of the in...
Pradeep Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR291(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the respondent-Board.2. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner Industrial Unit is entitled to the benefits of Industrial Policy 1995 in the matter of exemption from payment of AMG Charges for a period of five years.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :The petitioner setup an industry of cement manufacturing Unit. It applied to the Department of Industries for grant of Industrial License under the Small Scale Industries (SSI Sector). Petitioner also applied for electric connection of 100 KVA and the Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih accorded sanction vide letter-dated 14.1.2000 for the supply of electricity. After completed all the requirements and formalities including execution of agreement electric connection was energized on 6.12.2000. Petitioner said to have started commercial production with effect from 18.1...
Gayatri Devi Vs. Saraju Sah and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1573; [2005(3)JCR245(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Deoghar in Misc. Appeal No. 15/03 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 30.9.2003 passed by Sub-Judge-III, Deoghar in Misc. Case No. 17/03.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :The plaintiff/respondents filed Title Eviction Suit No. 21/01 for decree of eviction. In the said suit petitioner and his four sons who are the defendants appeared and after taking leave to contest the suit filed joint written statement. The Court below proceeded under Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The plaintiff/respondents after examining witnesses, closed the evidence. The defendant examined some formal witnesses and thereafter, left pairavi in the suit. The Court below after giving opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence, proceeded in accordance with the provisions...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Bihar State Industrial Development Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC31; [2005(3)JCR307(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the writ petitions as common questions of law are involved and some of the common orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as TISCO') has preferred the first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3510 of 2000(P) against the order dated 1st February; 2000, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. O.A. 2 of 1997, whereby the learned Presiding Officer allowed the petition, preferred by the 3rd respondent-Bank of India, Chirkunda Branch, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Bank') under Section 19(4) of the Recovery or Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act, 1993'), ex-parte with cost and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 12% per annum until full and final realization of the claim amount. It was ordered to issue certif...
Manju Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar79; 2005(2)BLJR1542; [2005(3)JCR435(Jhr)]
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2003 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 12358/2000 and raises certain interesting question relating to the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The predecessor-in interest of the appellants, late Anil Kumar Sinha, as an employee of the A. G. Office had been posted at Ranchi and since he fulfilled all the requirements he was enrolled as a member of the A. G. Office Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. with its area of operation confined to Ranchi and its immediate vicinity within a radius of 5 miles.3. Subsequently, on account of the fact that late Anil Kumar Sinha did not raise any construction on the plot which had been allotted to him as a member, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled by the Society by its order dated 14-11-1994. Being aggrieved thereby, Anil Kumar Sinha filed a Dispute Case before the Assistant. Registra...
Satya Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR78(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Office Order No. 1168/04 issued by Memo No. 2499 (4) dated 10.9.2004 (An-nexure-4) as also for quashing the Office Order No. 865/04 issued by Memo No. 1848, dated 22.7.2004 (Annexure-5) issued by the Superintendent of Police (T) Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's pay scale has been reduced to the scale of Rs. 3050/- and a sum of Rs. 1,09,391 allegedly paid in excess has been sought to be recovered.2. According to the petitioner, he has been proceeded against departmentally by serving charge-sheet containing the articles of changes wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has got his pay enhanced illegally without the required departmental training. That Departmental Proceeding being No. 18/04 is still pending and in the mean while, the order of reduction of his pay as well as recovery of the excess amount has been issued.3. The grievance of the petitiorer is that ev...
Shambhu Soni Vs. Kishore Prasad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR378(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the order dated 19.1.1998 passed in Civil Revision No. 388 of 1997(R), whereby while rejecting the Civil Revision application this Court made observation that the trial Court while complying with the impugned order will send the disputed documents for comparison by Handwriting Expert of any Government institution.2. The defendants filed the aforementioned Civil Revision No. 388 of 1997 (R) challenging the order dated 4.10.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 30 of 1995, whereby the trial Court accepted the prayer of the plaintiff for comparison of the signatures on the disputed documents by a Handwriting Expert. The Civil Revision application was dismissed with the direction to the Court below to refer the documents for comparison to any Government institution preferring Forensic Science Laboratory at Patna or Calcutta. The contention of the plaintiff-petitioner in the...
Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Off ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR293(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner Management, has challenged the award dated 23.7.1997 passed by respondent No. 1, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7/92 whereby punishment of withholding of increments imposed by the Management in a disciplinary departmental proceeding has been quashed.2. The concerned workman, namely, Sri Ram Chandra Mahato was serving as Sub-Accountant in CPF Section HMBP, HEC, Ranchi since 1963. He was proceeded departmentally on the charge that while posted as Sub-Accountant CPF Section HMBP, HEC in the year, 1985 he failed to maintain full integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he, being in collusion with one Sri Ram Janak Singh and another, delivered two cheques being cheque No. SA/5-714510 dated 22.4.1984 and cheque No. SA/5-715978 dated '8.6.1985 to fictitious persons. The Management as well as the concerned workman adduced evidence before the Enquiry Officer who submitted his repo...
Atwari Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-13-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ291; [2005(4)JCR222(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The sole appellant, Atwari Mandal was put on trial for commission of the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment dated 30th September, 1991 in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1991, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, held the appellant guilty for committing the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted him thereunder. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and RI for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 22.10.1989 at about 4 p.m. the informant, Chandrakala Devi (PW 7) lodged a First Information Report at Referal Hospital, Madhpur, alleging therein that on that day at about 7 a.m. whil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›